| ferdy 14.06.2005 17:57 |
Before upload I'd like someone who contact me (real queen audio expert)(John S Stuart??? are you there?) to compare this version with the one from the Queen us promo cd single. I'm not sure I can. |
| fjac1980 14.06.2005 18:20 |
REQUEST FORUM,PLEASE |
| John S Stuart 14.06.2005 18:32 |
I've sent you an email. |
| wstüssyb 14.06.2005 20:13 |
I'd love to hear this! |
| inu-liger 14.06.2005 21:13 |
Ditto |
| onevsion 15.06.2005 03:43 |
fjac1980 wrote: REQUEST FORUM,PLEASE??? |
| John S Stuart 15.06.2005 05:23 |
For Information: Ferdy kindly sent me an MP3 version of his acetate. Reproduced with permission, here is a copy of my return e-mail to him. Dear Ferdinando, thank you for letting me listen to your keep yourself alive acetate. after listening and comparing with other versions - i have good news and bad news! first - the bad news. the version you sent me is officially available on the hollywood record lable as - keep yourself alive (long lost re-take). there are three finger-prints to look out for. 1: the "play the game" type intro. 2: before the drum solo freddie sings "all you pretty people", and 3: at the end there is a monty-pythonesque line of "look on the bright side". this means that you can not really share this version. second: the good news is that if the short version b-side, is an edit of the long version a-side, then you can share this, as this would be unreleased. |
| Carrots Of The Piratebean 15.06.2005 08:28 |
Ducksoup wrote:My thoughts as well. Fjac, the way I read Ferdy's post was that he was asking about stuff he intended for upload before he did so. That to me is not a request for any files or whatever.fjac1980 wrote: REQUEST FORUM,PLEASE??? |
| fjac1980 15.06.2005 08:44 |
ok. but try to upload the song, cause i want to hear it too |
| Jjeroen 15.06.2005 09:07 |
...and also about a hundred other ones elsewhere in this forum... |
| ferdy 15.06.2005 15:41 |
I've sent the short version to John to check if it's really unreleased.If so I will post the link here. In the meantime is there someone among you you can help me to trace the story of this acetate. Why does it come with this label? I alway saw trident acetate from Queen. Any help appreciated!! |
| ferdy 15.06.2005 15:42 |
the second photo..... |
| Penetration_Guru 15.06.2005 15:46 |
WHat is the length of the short version? |
| sexmachine 15.06.2005 15:55 |
maybe you don´t want to answer to this,but i would like to know: where did you find this jewel and how much is it worth? |
| ferdy 15.06.2005 16:36 |
long version is 4.05 short 3.29 but consider that I played only once to record them so it may vary of some seconds. |
| fjac1980 15.06.2005 16:42 |
the_hero wrote: can you read John's post BEFORE typing pleasenice. as always |
| John S Stuart 15.06.2005 17:19 |
For definite, this acetate was made in the uk - and not usa. my best guess is that this acetate is pre-emi, and that is it was recorded at trident studios - but the band were not signed with emi. Remember the first LP was made in downtime - and not as official trident product. This would date it c1972. Interestingly, this track is refered to as a "long lost retake" on the hollywood version - also giving creedence to the above. Long Lost Re-take 4:05 Queen: US 1991 Hollywood HR-61064-2 This ties in with ferdy's own timings: long version is 4.05 short 3.29 The short version sounds like a "butchered" edit, in that the 30 missing seconds seem to be one bit pre drum solo, and another missing piece post drum solo, but as it is unreleased elsewhere, i think it should be ok to "release" here. |
| Wilki Amieva 15.06.2005 17:51 |
Master Room is indeed a London-based audio production company. It is not a 'proper' recording studio; it is more like Chop 'Em Out. It specializes in sound postproduction (editing, mastering, etc). Given that Trident had cutting facilities, my guess is that QUEEN/Trident commissioned a radio friendly edit of the Keep Yourself Alive re-take from Master Room, perhaps considering it for a single release. This acetate might be one of the tests sent back from the company to them. It is common to include also the un-edited version in such tests, for comparison. Or maybe Master Room mastered the track aswell (prior to editing), so they needed the reference. Anyway, it would be interesting to compare VERY closely the "long version" of your acetate with the Hollywood Records digitally remastered "long lost re-take" or "long lost original version" (as labeled on the KYA HR promo CD5). While I can figure out why QUEEN did not use this version in the single (it has an even slower opening), I wonder why they did not use it in the album. ...And if it was meant for it or not. The apparent contradiction between both HR names (I mean: "re-take" but "original"???) could be solved if we think of it as "original for the album". Of course this is all highly speculative. By the way, I think that this version should have worked very well as an opener for the album, bearing its peculiar 'noisy' intro - still better if a 'reversed' counterpart is added at the end of the last track, Seven Seas Of Rhye... |
| John S Stuart 15.06.2005 17:56 |
Wilkie: are you able to provide a short mp3 of the reversed bit as you suggest - please? it would make it easier for me to fully understnd what you are saying! (i have no imagination - sorry!) I also think this acetate was chopped-out as a "demo disc" which could be hawked around the more professional studios - while Queen were trying to obtain a professional contract. Again this points to c1972(ish) |
| Wilki Amieva 15.06.2005 17:58 |
John: Your wish is my command! ;-) I have edited my previous post. By the way, it was not lack of everybody's imagination but a honest mistake by me: I originally posted that text with two different approaches in mind and left it with half an idea, half nonsense. (In fact one of the ideas was not even a creative one, as it seems very likely that I have already heard some sort of "long-lost re-take" of Seven Seas Of Rhye... - a fan mix made by Bart Lammey a long time ago!) Now back to Keep Yourself Alive... Being this really a "re-take" (which is supposedly confirmed by the Brian May quote on the sleeve notes of the QUEEN HR reissue), it should be placed after the original QUEEN album sessions which ended in November 1972. The problem is to set an upper limit. July 6th 1973 is the UK release date of the Keep Yourself Alive single, being the album issued one week later. But on February 5th QUEEN recorded their first session for the BBC, and the regular version was used as a reference, not the re-take (please note that the latter has a slightly faster tempo - besides of course all the different licks and stuff). Has it not been recorded yet? Or was it discarded already? The second BBC session was recorded on July 25th and the re-take was (again?) completely overlooked. Was it forgotten? Or just not recorded yet? Could it be possible that it was devised later, for a re-release of the song perhaps? |
| ferdy 15.06.2005 19:01 |
Hello, First of all a big thanks to JJS for all the help in classify this acetate (7").Below you'll find the link to donwload the short version mentioned above. It's my present to the Queenzone community.. the day of my birthday (june 16th). Why don't share this passion with other people? I love this piece.. it's one of my favourite in my collection and it has no sense whatching it and handle it without share these feelings with other collectors/fans. link |
| John S Stuart 15.06.2005 19:04 |
Thanks Ferdy for sharing this with us. |
| djaef 15.06.2005 19:59 |
Yeah, thanks. It's a little piece of history :) |
| Ale_Pisa 15.06.2005 20:04 |
Thank you very much Ferdy |
| Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira 15.06.2005 20:21 |
Thank you so much, Ferdy! |
| Wilki Amieva 15.06.2005 20:25 |
Thanks! AND HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!! |
| Leonardo Venegas 15.06.2005 22:13 |
link I just listened to the short version and it's great to be able to have this song. I know the long lost retake is official as John S. Stuart said before, but I'm not sure if this is the same version shared on the link above. Can anybody tell me something about this? |
| Ron 16.06.2005 00:04 |
ah so you are the one who bought it Ferdy :) this disc originally came from a bloke from England who once wanted to sell it to me in January 2003. I couldn't afford it back then so I had to pass it. Later on it seemed that GB bought it but already wanted to sell it in November 2003. Nice one Ferdy :) It's pretty funny by the way to see that even the unreleased versions on acetates seem to be released in the end on re-issues. In this case the long lost retake. |
| Wilki Amieva 16.06.2005 00:14 |
Hey Ron! Updated June 03??? |
| inu-liger 16.06.2005 00:20 |
Wonder if we should send this (the MP3) to Brian and/or QP? :) I'm sure he'd appreciate it |
| Wilki Amieva 16.06.2005 01:44 |
QP already have both versions, as GB was the previous owner of the acetate. |
| Penetration_Guru 16.06.2005 02:04 |
Sounds as though GB bought it in case it had anything intersting - when he found it was what was already in the archive, he sold it on. |
| Wilki Amieva 16.06.2005 02:19 |
I agree. |
| Mr Drowse 16.06.2005 03:50 |
Thank ou and happy birthday! |
| John S Stuart 16.06.2005 05:24 |
Wilki: i enjoyed your very interesting post, but i think (imo) you may be a little too logical here. The problem may be that you interpret the word "re-take" too literally, and that this disc could still have been recorded as a pre-eponymous album version. Here's what i am thinking: on 3rd April 1983, Brian May revealed in an Alexis Korner BBC Radio One interview, as many as "8 different Takes/Versions of Keep Yourself Alive was recorded". Using the above statement as my base, this means that - this acetate could be as early a version as take 2 - as by default - that would still make it a retake on take 1. This would make it a much earlier incarnation than your Trident/Emi version. I personally think that the first take was cut between September 1971 - February 1972, (more specifically as one of the five demo tracks laid-down at De Lane Lea Studios recorded on September 18, 1971), because the De Lane Lea Demo Tape as recorded by Louie Austin, was the first real studio time employed by Queen. After moving studios, rehearsal suites, and timetables, the eponymous LP was recorded June – Nov 1972. (Released 13th July 1973). Produced by John Anthony, Roy Thomas Baker & Queen at Trident Studios, London, for Neptune Productions. (The Night Comes Down was recorded by Louie Austin, and kept over from the De Lane Lea session). It was at these more serious/professional Trident sessions which much of the older De Lane Lea material (along with some newer tracks) was re-recorded and eventually considered good enough to publically release. Therefore i suggest, (and this is my best guess) taht the acetate disc was cut between the original de lane le demos - September 1971 and the Emi Lp version recorded June – Nov 1972. As previously suggested this would point to an early 1972 recording. I also think this is why it was "lost" - as it was lost between the De Lane Lea and the trident/emi recordings - again pointing to an early 1972 - pre LP version. However i would be very interested in reading your (or any one else's) feedback to this post. Below is a complete Keep Yourself Alive discography based on all current information: 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 Long Lost Re-take 3:29 Edit 1972 UK Master Room 7” Acetate 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 BBC Old Grey Whistle Test Reconstructed Video Queen Rocks VHS video Promotional Video (Original 4x3 TV Ratio) Greatest Flix I & II: Pioneer PLMPD 01171 Promotional Video Greatest Video Hits: Parlophone 7243 4 92944 9 3 Promotional Video (Brian's Mother's Coat) Version Unreleased: BBC Old Grey Whistle Test Original Video Erased: |
| John S Stuart 16.06.2005 05:28 |
Two quick points - First: Inu-Liger: Wonder if we should send this (the MP3) to Brian and/or QP? :) Apart from the fact that GB was the previous owner, it is NOT yours or OURS to send to anyone. That decision solely belongs to Ferdy. Second: Once again - Nice one Ferdy - thank you and well done. |
| ferdy 16.06.2005 05:47 |
yes, I confirm I bought from GB. But the information that are coming out from this thread are very precious for me cause they help me and hope all of you, in tracing a sort of serious history of this item. I have another acetate (not from GB) of Seven Seas Of Rhye/see what a fool I've been, 7" trident label. I think that they are same of album one but if it can be useful we can do same work as for the KYA. Let me know |
| ferdy 16.06.2005 06:08 |
as regard sending or not. edit version is now available. And I think that anyone can download. If someone from QP listen to it and would like a better quality copy why shouldn't I give to them. Anyway I think they had these versions considering where i took this from. |
| Jamaleni 16.06.2005 06:37 |
Now, after reading all your posts, I'm pretty confused. I downloaded KYA (Long-Lost..) few years ago, but that version is 3:58 long. So which one is that? |
| John S Stuart 16.06.2005 07:28 |
Jamaleni: "...I'm pretty confused. I downloaded KYA (Long-Lost..) few years ago, but that version is 3:58 long. So which one is that?" Don't be confused. it is obviously an incorrectly labeled download. I can not say for sure which version you do have, but i suggest it may be either one of the bbc's - or even a long lost retake - but as an incomplete download. (now i know the download may have appeared complete to you, but how do you know if the version you downloaded was complete to begin with?) Moral of the story? - buy the hollywood version for the full unedited long lost retake! but for sure: Long Lost Re-take 4:05 Queen: US 1991 Hollywood HR-61064-2 Hope this helps you out!!! |
| Libor2 16.06.2005 08:31 |
Thanks a lot Ferdy for sharing it. It's very interesting I have to say. And, of course, thanks John for info. |
| Tim June 16.06.2005 09:03 |
Thanks for sharing! Seems to be very interesting... |
| Wilki Amieva 16.06.2005 10:57 |
'Re-taking' the original thread... Keep Yourself Alive - acetate "long version" versus Hollywood Records "long lost re-take"/"long lost original version": My veredict is SAME recording, but in slightly DIFFERENT mixing stage. Whilst some of the (still minor) differences between both versions are mainly due to their coming from different recording media and in different conditions (new CD versus old acetate) and also from the HR remastering process, I believe that the following (at least for the most part) are not: - Slightly different mixing. The drums are more prominent in the HR version, while the guitar is more prominent in the acetate. You can spot this easily on the intro to the song and also on the instrumental breaks (e.g: from 1:24 to 1:30). - Slightly different stereo panning. You can also spot this more easily in the intro: The track starts almost only on the left side in the HR version, while the one from the acetate is more equally balanced. - The vocal reverb on the word "superstar" (approximately at 1:07 on the song) is a bit more prominent in the acetate. Also, the fade-out of the track is a bit longer in the acetate version, but this is more likely because of another fade-out being applied during HR remastering. I also want to make clear that both names "long lost re-take" and "long lost original version" refer to the very same track issued by Hollywood Records - NO DIFFERENCES HERE. Finally, Keep Yourself Alive - acetate "long version" versus acetate "short version": The short version is indeed just an edit of the long version, as John already said. It misses the last 30 seconds by means of an earlier fade-out (ending approximately at the time of the "take you all your time and money, honey" line) - so resembling the approach used in the US single edit of the same song (but of course that one is based on the regular album version instead). Also the 'phased' intro is a little bit shorter (missing about 3 seconds). Text reproduced by kind permission of Ferdinando Frega. I will add to our when/where deliberations later. |
| AC 16.06.2005 11:52 |
the_hero wrote: thank you very much John and Wilki for this discussion and Ferdy for the song, and happy birthday! :)As the hero said, thank you to John, Wilki and Ferdy and happy birthday to Ferdy! |
| Walter B. 16.06.2005 11:59 |
For this topic as well: Thank you Ferdy, Wilki and John! Two excellent and informative posts in one day. And for Ferdy: many happy returns! Hooray Hooray Hooray !!! |
| John S Stuart 16.06.2005 12:22 |
Wilki: Nice to see that we are in agreement as far as first base is concerned. I also agree that although the acetate and the remastered CD may suffer from minor differences, they are both copies from the same source master version. I look forward to reading your remaining thoughts when you get around to writing. Ferdy: I also wrote this in the I Want To Break Free thread. "...this... thread - (imo) has shown up all that is good in Queenzone. I know that small sqabbles and spats sometimes split the board - but when QZ gets it right - it gets it right big time. Sometimes it just takes a little nudge from someone like Ferdy to remind me why we really are here, and for that, I reserve my biggest thank you of all. Richard: Can I suggest that the story of Ferdy's Keep Yourself Alive Long Lost Retake (short edit) UK 7" Master Room acetate is moved into the News section, because as far as I am aware, this is the first time such a disc has been found, and that such information has ever been made public. |
| flashalive 16.06.2005 14:40 |
Thank you so much for sharing Ferdy- and thanks to all who have posted information- this has been one of the most interesting and detailed reads on Queenzone today. Good stuff lads :) |
| Penetration_Guru 16.06.2005 17:32 |
As the local purveyor of doom and gloom, can I ask why editing a track makes it ok to share if the full version is not ok? I could take half a second off most Queen songs (demonstrably so) without seriously affecting the listenability (if at all) and offer them all for download on here. |
| John S Stuart 16.06.2005 18:26 |
PG: when you put it that way - I don't know. I guess I would say that it is not officially available and that the edit is more a sample? As such, it is not taking monies away from the record companies - so their "defence" of stealing from offical product is invalidated? It is a grey area - and the next logical question must be - what about unreleased edits, remixes and demos? My own conscience dictates that if it could have been purchased - I would have bought it - but clearly there is no way I could have bought this edit as it was never released officially. Even long deleted material, (like Debbie Byrne), I would rather scan e-bay for a second hand copy, than upload - because it was officially available at some time. To be honest, I don't know the answer, and I suspect my morality is based more on justification than legalities, but I would certainly be interested in the views of others. To be human does mean to make mistakes, and you have certainly made me rethink my stance, but in essence you are correct. Therefore, is my simple philosophy of officially released on the one hand, Vs fair game on the other, too simplistic, and just as invalid as the "download everything for free" argument? |
| Adam Unger (QueenVault.com) 16.06.2005 20:32 |
In response to John's comments, "To be honest, I don't know the answer, and I suspect my morality is based more on justification than legalities, but I would certainly be interested in the views of others." As you know, I do share MP3 files on my website, which I kind of assumed you would be against (this is just an assumption). I say if it has been deleted or no longer in production, then it is fair game. For example, I have shared the US Edit of Flick Of The Wrist before because it is no longer available. However, if it were to be released again (such as the Single Version of I'm In Love With My Car recently on the new Hollywood Greatest Hits WWRY Edition), then I would not share it. I too would be interested in hearing yours (and anyone else's) thoughts. Perhaps this should be a new thread? |
| Maz 16.06.2005 20:54 |
Thanks for this |
| Wilki Amieva 16.06.2005 23:38 |
PG: Of course if YOU edit a song SO slightly, it still remains basically the same stuff - albeit 'incomplete'. But if THEY do the same it is indeed considered a different version. There is still a grey zone, because if you change it considerably it would count as a fan-made mix/edit, which are allowed and in fact encouraged in QUEENZone. But those belong to a separate section - just to avoid confusion. |
| Wilki Amieva 16.06.2005 23:39 |
The only thing that counts WITHIN THIS SITE is whether the item was ever OFFICIALLY RELEASED (or soon to be) or not. In the present case, that particular edit was never on any official release, so it is permitted. I have stressed the words 'WITHIN THIS SITE' because some of you insist on finding precise logic or moral justification on its rules. You will not find them, nor a manifestation of God. I believe Richard was just trying to make them SIMPLE. Yes, they might be a little bit overprotective, but I see no real harm in that. This site is too much under the spotlight to take even the slightest risks. Besides, it is no secret that some of the stuff that is forbidden here can be found somewhere else on the net. There is always the HUB, for instance, which has less restrictions for sharing. I have my own ethics on what should and what should not be posted on this section. But I fully comply with Richard's rules. I respect him, as he is only trying to protect QUEENZone. And that is what this is all about. |
| Saint Jiub 16.06.2005 23:42 |
Adam Unger (QueenVault.com) wrote: I say if it has been deleted or no longer in production, then it is fair game.I strongly agree with this philosophy. If the record companies are too lazy to put something on the market, or if the record companies no longer sell it, it is fair game for downloading. I suspect that Richard has a stricter prohibition on sharing deleted official material as a precaution in order to cover his ass against the unprodictable whims of the recording industry. |
| Saint Jiub 16.06.2005 23:48 |
I find it extremely generous that Ferdy shared this acetate. Not only did he sacrifice trading value, he probably reduced the monetary value of his acetate. |
| Crazy LittleThing 17.06.2005 01:05 |
Thanks Ferdy. I hope you had a great birthday! |
| queenmagicvision 17.06.2005 02:15 |
Thank you, happy birthday! ;-) |
| ferdy 17.06.2005 04:35 |
Rip Van Winkle wrote: I find it extremely generous that Ferdy shared this acetate. Not only did he sacrifice trading value, he probably reduced the monetary value of his acetate.I hope that nobody think that I'm stupid... as for the trading value I've got a very important informations to archive with this acetate and that it's priceless for a collector. Then if someone wants to share something with me , of course I'm reaaly open and would very happy to get something I miss in my audio/video collection :). But this is not the point. I'm not millionaire and this acetate cost me a certain amount of money. I don't want to sell it but speaking of an hypotethic price I think it acquired more value cause of the infos I discovered shareing this. let me know what you think. |
| ferdy 17.06.2005 04:38 |
thanks anyway to all of you for your nice messages... I wish I had other rare tracks to share with you... but who knows... sooner or later I will record digitally a US test press of Queen I .. I'm not quite sure about two mixes. stay tuned!! |
| flashalive 17.06.2005 07:46 |
Hi Ferdy, I think sharing this rare acetate has not decreased the value but if anything increased it. How many people knew about this acetate before ?? How many would people would have been doubtful about buying this if they did'nt have enough information behind them to validate that this was a real rarity and not a cunning bootleg? Information is valuable !! Well now that most Queenzoners know all about this mega rarity I'm sure more people would desire this than ever before provided that you are inclined to collectng rare Queen vinyl.After all its not just what is on this acetate that makes it rare but also what it physically is- a collectors piece- after all this is the basis of the value and desire for Queen coloured vinyl's and picture discs etc... its not like we don't have the music already is it? This is a real rare piece of Queen history and the fact that someone like GB woould happily sell this on puzzles me. This is the jewel in the crown of anyone's collection.I know I would love to have it but know I could not afford something like that. And for that I am really grateful and thankful to Ferdy for being so generous in sharing this item !!! And thanks for the pictures too- makes it even more interesting !! |
| Adam Unger (QueenVault.com) 17.06.2005 08:37 |
Actually may question is rather invalid to a degree. I never took the rules of Queenzone in consideration for my statement. |
| ferdy 17.06.2005 09:32 |
togheter with JJS also a great thanks to Wilki!!! |
| Wilki Amieva 17.06.2005 13:41 |
Again, thanks to YOU, Ferdy. While I am still analyzing every Keep Yourself Alive version between 1971 and 1974 that I have (I am now focusing on guitar licks and lyric changes), I have also started a research on the Master Room acetate labels. What I have learned so far is that the particular label attached to the KYA acetate was in use until 1976/1977 (some BEATLES-related discs are proof of that), but I could not locate any early-1970's example. In short: I am stuck. Maybe someone can help me. Any ideas, John? Thanks in advance. |
| John S Stuart 17.06.2005 14:32 |
Wilki: "...the particular label attached to the KYA acetate was in use until 1976/1977..." I must admit this is slightly later than I thought - I would have settled for 1975/6 - but again it's nice to have a upper limit. Therefore regardless of any other external factors, we know for a fact that the acetate was cut between 1971 - 1976/7 for sure. The earliest limit would have to be from Beatles acetates, but again I always thought late 1960's - early 70's (1968ish - 1971ish). So we need to find some Beatles enthusiasts to find out. |
| Wilki Amieva 17.06.2005 15:15 |
I fully agree with you, John. In fact, I have contacted some BEATLES collectors, but with no luck. Nobody could give me a good answer, as most BEATLES acetates from the late 60's/early 70's were cut by Apple in the UK. It seems that Master Room acetates of that period are indeed rare. |
| ferdy 17.06.2005 19:08 |
John S Stuart wrote: Wilki: "...the particular label attached to the KYA acetate was in use until 1976/1977..." |
| ferdy 17.06.2005 19:21 |
ferdy wrote:John S Stuart wrote: Wilki: "...the particular label attached to the KYA acetate was in use until 1976/1977..." I correct myself... just checked, it's a similar label about a acetate from "The Cure" : "let's go to Bed" (1982). I attach the photo |
| ferdy 17.06.2005 19:22 |
ferdy wrote:ferdy wrote:John S Stuart wrote: Wilki: "...the particular label attached to the KYA acetate was in use until 1976/1977..." I correct myself... just checked, it's a similar label. Acetate from "The Cure" : "let's go to Bed" (1982). I attach the photo |
| Saint Jiub 18.06.2005 00:22 |
ferdy wrote:Ferdy, I did not mean to imply you were stupid, I was just trying to point out the extent of your generosity, and the potential "sacrifice" you made for Queenzone. You did not have to share with everyone. You could have shared the song with just John and Wilki via e-mail as they were the main ones that were helpful to you.Rip Van Winkle wrote: I find it extremely generous that Ferdy shared this acetate. Not only did he sacrifice trading value, he probably reduced the monetary value of his acetate.I hope that nobody think that I'm stupid... as for the trading value I've got a very important informations to archive with this acetate and that it's priceless for a collector. Then if someone wants to share something with me , of course I'm reaaly open and would very happy to get something I miss in my audio/video collection :). But this is not the point. I'm not millionaire and this acetate cost me a certain amount of money. I don't want to sell it but speaking of an hypotethic price I think it acquired more value cause of the infos I discovered shareing this. let me know what you think. |
| John S Stuart 18.06.2005 05:14 |
Ferdy: Excellent Cure actetate. (Not as good as Queen though!) But back to the point. If you re-examine your Keep Yourself Alive disc, you will notice some major differences - which provide additional information - or clues. First: The telephone number. I can't recall exactly, but one of the big shake-ups occured c1990, when, all UK numbers commencing with a zero - were changed to - zero one. (All london numbers are now prefaced 01...). This has happened quite a few times in the London area, (about once or twice per decade) so a bit of detective work on the Master Room telephone number: 01 637 2223 (notice that here the telephone number consists of 2 - 3 - 4 digits) should date your disc 1970 - 75ish. Second: the address. 59/61 Ridinghouse Street, London, W1P 7PP - should also yeild many clues. I am NOT a London expert, but i "think" W1 may refer to a district that has long since been redeveloped (were the docklands "P"?) - but i am sure some London experts could help out here. Third: Building. I have physically seen a number of Queen EMI acetates. Some were cut at Abbey Road, others at Townhouse (you can view some great j-pegs at Ron B's - link, I have also seen Trident acetates - but your acetate is neither - why? This (imo) suggests a solid affiliation with neither - hence the pre EMI suggestion. Fourth: label design. If you compare your KYA and Cure acetates, you will see that they are on different coloured labels. This too yeilds clues. For example Queen's early EMI 7" singles were pressed using the traditional tan/red labels with a huge Emi emblazened down the right hand side. Queen's mid singles releases featured both the crests from ANATO & A day at the races. Later singles, came in plain black labels - but the point is that all releases were official emi discs. Sorry if this is all boring and turgid reading, but i find it fascinating - and i must point out - i am merely thinking aloud. that way i do not come across as some sort of arrogant git - but demonstrating the mental steps that need to be taken before I can say, "i think that... the evidence points to..." |
| Wilki Amieva 18.06.2005 06:01 |
Excellent post, John (as always). I must admit that some of your ideas to possible clues have also crossed my mind (after all, the same methods are applied to set limits to the pressing date of books and memorabilia - I used to work as an assistant to a historian), but I am no London expert either. And I do not have the slimest chance to meet one, as I live in Argentina. By the way, it does not seem so weird to me that the KYA acetate was cut at Master Room and not at Trident (or EMI). Please bear in mind that Master Room is basically a sound postproduction facility - not a proper recording studio. So that is what they do for living: mastering, editing, cutting, duplicating... Think of it pretty much as of the Chop 'Em Out releases of the late 80's/early 90's. At that time, QUEEN were a high priority band for their labels and for any studio - in fact, they have one of their own. Still, the humble Chop 'Em Out was commissioned to make a lot of postproduction work for them: audio for commercials, EPKs, teasers, etc. Now think that at the time of their first album, QUEEN were not high priority - in fact they recorded it 'downtime'. Please do not misunderstand me - I find all your considerations feasible. I just want to add another point of view. I hope it is welcome. ...And we still have to find more acetates with the same label, so we can set a lower limit based on that. |
| John S Stuart 18.06.2005 10:15 |
Wilki: "Please do not misunderstand me - I find all your considerations feasible. I just want to add another point of view. I hope it is welcome." Thanks - your point of view is always welcome, and as they say - two heads are better than one! Why I am fascinted - it is because I want the answer to another question - why Master Room? I feel like one of those great old scientists at the British museum when first presented with a duck-billed platypus - they thought it was a hoax! But it wasn't - and it did exist. It's a bit like Ferdy's acetate - it exists - but shouldn't - and that is the great mystery of it all! |
| Wilki Amieva 18.06.2005 15:06 |
Being a scientist myself, I understand exactly what you mean, John. In fact, I am deeply intrigued myself, although it is not the Master Room issue what puzzles me more (as I explained in my previous post). The very existence of Ferdy's disc is what fascinates me, as it points to the KYA "re-take/original version" being considered as a single, hence the need for an edit. And that is something we never knew before. |
| Ron 18.06.2005 15:35 |
Wilki wrote: Being a scientist myself, I understand exactly what you mean, John. In fact, I am deeply intrigued myself, although it is not the Master Room issue what puzzles me more (as I explained in my previous post). The very existence of Ferdy's disc is what fascinates me, as it points to the KYA "re-take/original version" being considered as a single, hence the need for an edit. And that is something we never knew before.I dont think that every edit means that it was once proposed as a single release. I have a Trident 7" acetate with an edited BBC version of Ogre Battle. Don't think that that one was ever considered as a single. |
| John S Stuart 18.06.2005 16:03 |
I have to agree with Ron - just because an edit version exists does not automatically mean that it should be released as a single - but it does mean that someone is playing about with both mixes and timings. But again that begs the question - why? In the words of Johnny Nash - there are more questions than answers! |
| Wilki Amieva 18.06.2005 16:06 |
Yeah, you may be right on that one, Ron. I cannot come with a good explanation for your Ogre Battle acetate. What was Trident doing with/to that BBC recording? Another puzzle. But then again See What A Fool I've Been was partly recorded at the BBC sessions, and it was used as a B-side. If your acetate is as early as December 1973 (as you think), then bear in mind that (according to official sources) the next single was not picked yet. So maybe they did consider OB as a B-side, or even an A-side for some kind of early promo (perhaps for the advertising of the BBC broadcasting). I do not know. Adam Unger describes the edit as lacking intro (and outro - an obvious choice if you cut the intro) and we know that the band and label were looking for a more immediate effect in their second single as they were told that KYA flopped because it took too much time to start (sic). I know that this is all HIGHLY especulative, but the edit timings are indeed radio friendly. As John put it, someone was in the studio playing with those recordings. I should add that someone was probably PAID to do so, on behalf of a rather UNKNOWN band. So there might be a VERY good reason. In the particular case of KYA I cannot think of a better reason - After all, KYA WAS picked as the first single! (And, as I have said, a similar approach was used on the US edit). |
| Ron 19.06.2005 05:21 |
Wilki wrote: I do not know. Adam Unger describes the edit as lacking intro (and outro - an obvious choice if you cut the intro) and we know that the band and label were looking for a more immediate effect in their second single as they were told that KYA flopped because it took too much time to start (sic). I know that this is all HIGHLY especulative, but the edit timings are indeed radio friendly.Interesting. You've made a point there! When you listen to the OB edit it doesn't have an intro at all. It immediatly starts with the screams that fade in, followed by Freddie. Would be a lot better for radio promotion than the long version. Maybe that's why they also edited WWRY which I have on an EMI 7" acetate. Although the original intro isn't that long. Edits - who needs them? |
| John S Stuart 19.06.2005 06:04 |
Gentlemen - it could be that these discs were cut for Radio airplay promos for Radio stations only - and were not intended for commercial release. For example, Ron's Ogre Battle would fit better into the flow a breakfast show - rather than the full album track. Particularly, if it was a BBC show - employing the track as a forthcoming teaser. I also think that some special "radio friendly" edits were cut in the USA for the Beatles hey jude - but the edited version was never (i think) released in any commercial format by the band. So far, so good. But that still leaves us with the major headache of why edit the KYA version - when it is not the commercial version anyway? This returns me full circle to my opening gambit. That the disc was cut inbetween Trident and Emi, and that the long side was a type of portfolio showcase to attract a potential record deal, and that the short side was indeed meant (at the time) for radio airplay. So the disc would have been hawked around both the industry and the media in the hope of some recognition or pick-up. Sometime later the band are officially signed by emi, and professionlly re-record much of their de lan lea and other demos - including the latest KYA version. It is this newer version that is remarketed or rebranded (just like new Daz or the new Vauxhall), as another potential single. The rest they say is history... I know that the above is my best guess, but it seems to be the only solution that fits all the facts that we know about - yet is still able to answer the sets of new questions which we keep asking. Any other ideads? |
| Serry... 19.06.2005 06:28 |
About sharing: since QP and Mr Brooks didn't gave us the list of stuff what would be released on box-set, I think it's okay to share such tracks as this KYA version. We don't know if it's gonna be released or not, we know that it was never released before, we know that it's different to already released versions (as well as all demos) - so it can be shared, IMO. |
| Wilki Amieva 19.06.2005 11:08 |
I do like that theory, John. But in the case of KYA it stills do not FULLY convince me because of... the music. I will add to that later. Serry: Exactly! |
| rhyeking 04.07.2005 01:27 |
Hmmm |
| rhyeking 04.07.2005 01:35 |
Hopefully no one resents my re-hashing this topic, but I've been out of the loop and just discovered this acetate subject and have listened to the edit. I read through the entire thread and have a few thoughts of my own regarding the timeline for the Keep Yourself Alive song's evolution. When was this recorded? I agree with those who say it was after the album version was recorded, what we generally consider the standard version. Queen recorded their first album between June and November, 1972. Issues with Trident postponed the album's release a good seven months. However, Queen perform their 1st BBC session in February of '73, performing a version closer to the standard version. By then, they were simply waiting on Trident to get them a publishing company, because the album was done. By this point, they would have picked the single to be released (the standard version), and performed *that* version at the Beeb to promote it. The period of time they recorded was evidently fraught with arguments and debates over songs and their respective versions. It's not illogical to assume that two or three renditions of each song were put down on tape and mixed, before the band decided on which they liked. Look at The Night Comes Down; the Roy Thomas Baker version recorded wasn't used, instead, they used the old De Lane Lea version. Mad The Swine was left off completely because of arguments over the percussion sound. No one questioned that a second version of KYA was recorded once the Long Lost Re-take surfaced in 1991... So, why an acetate and an edit? Maybe we're looking at this backwards. We assume that the LLRT (Long Lost Re-Take) was always meant to be the four-minute-long version on the Hollywood Records QUEEN CD and Crown Jewels Promo single. Perhaps, the short version was meant to be the complete song, and the long version was simply *the long version* (aka, the unaltered copy of what the boys played on the day...the master version, if you will). The Cross did a similar thing with Ain't Put Nothin' Down. The Long Version appeared on the New Dark Ages single, but was not titled that on the single's sleeve. It's not until we compare it to the album version (which came out after) that we refer to this as the Long Version. Our sense of order defaults to the albums as the point of standard. If it's different from the album version, the album version is normal, the other version (either released before or after) is different. My point here is that maybe Queen's original intention for the KYA-LLRT was for it to be the 3:30 one. The one marked long was simply a back up, so that the nothing of the source material was lost. When deciding to add it as a bonus track in 1991, Brian obviously gave it his stamp of approval (his liner note) and was maybe even consulted on which version to use. Here's something to think about: what if the *LONG* in Long Lost Re-take refers NOT to the fact that this Re-take was *Long-Lost*, as popular expression has it, but that this was the *Long Version* of the *Lost Re-Take*? Take note how it's listed on the back of the 1991 HR QUEEN re-issue: 12. KEEP YOURSELF ALIVE (LONG LOST RE-TAKE) (4:04) It's NOT listed as (Long-Lost Re-take), which proper grammer would dictate, if it was truly meant to read as Long-Lost. Either way, they decided to use what we now know as the *standard* version as both album and single version (except in the US, who got it as an edit on the single). The acetate may have been pressed so that the band and/or Roy could take it home and listen to it, to decide if it was going to be THE version they used. By all accounts, the boys were meticulous in the studio, working on one song at a time before moving onto the next one (partially because of the down-time schedule of recording and partially because they were perfectionists). Here's a tidbit I'm surprised no one pointed out: The version played live on Live Killers seems closer to the LLRT than the standard ve |
| rhyeking 06.07.2005 12:42 |
I would've thought my entry'd garner SOME kind of reply... |
| bitesthedust 06.07.2005 13:28 |
thanks ferdy for uploading this !!! |
| wstüssyb 06.07.2005 14:39 |
Give it longer then a day rhyneking. |
| djaef 07.07.2005 01:44 |
rhyeking wrote: I would've thought my entry'd garner SOME kind of reply...So would I. ;) I'm having a hard enough time following this thread, but it's fascinating nonetheless. I won't presume to have much of a perspective on this, but rhyeking's ideas sound very interesting and quite plausible to me. I look forward to what JSS and others have to say about them. Keep it coming guys. |
| John S Stuart 07.07.2005 08:52 |
Rhyeking: I read through the entire thread and have a few thoughts of my own regarding the timeline for the Keep Yourself Alive song's evolution. When was this recorded? I agree with those who say it was after the album version was recorded, what we generally consider the standard version. Respectfully, I disagree. The First recorded version hails from neither EMI or Trident but De Lane Lea - this De Lane Lea Original Demo lasts 3:40 - while the Long Lost Re-take clocks in at 4:05 and the Long Lost Re-take edit at 3:29. The official album version at 3:47 - this means that the album version is closer to the De Lane Lea Demo. The Long version (and I accept your interpretation of long) is about 20 seconds longer - also the edit is clocked in at 3:29 (closer to the LP version) while the US edit 7" was clocked at US 7" 3:25. I STILL suggest that this take was recorded between De Lane Lea and EMI (hence lost because ti was neithr - yet still twixt and between) and that the edit was not cut down to a single size - but to fit more with the LP banding - as why else are all the LP versions/candidates similar size - but the long version extended? This suggests a more "live" variation (yes - we have been here before - it is possible to record live in a studio - heavens above - that's how the Beatles first LP was cut) - but a variation that may not have been overdubbed to the extent of the EMI versions - and hence the additional length. The period of time they recorded was evidently fraught with arguments and debates over songs and their respective versions. It's not illogical to assume that two or three renditions of each song were put down on tape and mixed, before the band decided on which they liked. Not for Queen's debut LP. As Brian has said, they did not have the time (due to recording downtime constraints) and that they wanted a quick album to showcase their talents (and have a product for the grandkids). Infact they had so little time, they were forced to use one of the de lane lea tracks The Night Comes Down - as is. Look at The Night Comes Down; the Roy Thomas Baker version recorded wasn't used, instead, they used the old De Lane Lea version. Mad The Swine was left off completely because of arguments over the percussion sound. True, but these were not laboured. They were quickly moved onto the next bit. I still don't know if a Roy TB version of TNCD was completed - or even recorded. The version played live on Live Killers seems closer to the LLRT than the standard version. The first time I heard the LLRT, I thought that and I just gave them both another listen to be sure. Again, the fast wwry was only recorded for the bbc - but that too was delivrered live on the same tour, but as i also suggest above - this is perhaps the closest to a live vinyl version anyway! I know that I seem like a stuck record, but so far, I can find no evidence to suggest this track was recorded post-lp. I think you may be correct in your interpretation of long - but I woul still argue this track was recorded between the one (de lane lea) and the other (emi) - and that's why it has been lost for so long - and why freddie could own a personal acetate. |
| rhyeking 11.07.2005 02:15 |
When I said I agreed that it was recorded after the LP version, I meant it was likely a subsequent take recorded during the down-time debut album sessions, not a version recorded after November of 1972 (when the album was purported to have been completed and mixed). It's possible it was a "live" studio take, but there are distinct mixing differences between the acetate edit and official Long Lost Re-take (and not just in the drum and guitar sound, and the earlier fade-out). Brian's liner note in the Hollywood Records QUEEN re-issue reads, in full: "This is a complete re-make of 'Keep Yourself Alive'. This version never surfaced anywhere. It contains many new ideas and quirks, as well as reproductions of some of the old ones." His syntax implies that the structure of the LP version (and the De Lane Lea Demo) came first, and the structure of this version came after (as they played around with new ideas). Brian has said that the band did not know what Elektra was up to in North America half the time, so the editting of the LP version from 3:47 to 3:30 probably went unnoticed, and subsequently never factored into the evolution of the song from the band's point of view. The very existence of so many versions, of this song in the Queen canon (official or otherwise) say to me that either the band thought highly of the song from the day it was written, or Brian championed it throughout the early days (probably a combination of both). The band record it for their first official "demo" tape, to use to solicite a record deal. They then place it not only first on their debut album, but as their debut single. The importance of these choices speaks to Queen's need to find a song (and version) that will introduce the 1972/1973 general public to their music. They appear to have focused that job on KYA. I don't find it surprising that they choose to record at least one alternate take of it, either because Brian had a few new ideas or the band couldn't decided which worked better. Correct me if I'm wrong, but everything I've read indicates that the band didn't have time/facilities to record material between the De Lane session and the 1st album session. Once they began work in Trident Studios, they were on a down-time schedule. This points to 'Hangman', 'Rock 'n' Roll Medley', 'Polar Bear', 'Feelings' and 'Silver Salmon' being recorded live in the studio likely in the early Trident sessions. |
| John S Stuart 11.07.2005 03:22 |
Good points, but I think that we are trying to academicalise something that may be far simpler. I will need to look out the Alexis Korner BBC radio interview wherein Brian says that 8 different takes of KYA exist, and then he goes on to explain why. From memory he states that each recording lacked something, or that they were unhappy with the mix, or the sound, but they kept returning to the original version because it sounded raw and unpolished. I think if I find the interview, I will transcribe it here, as it very likely, will answer many of your questions. |
| djaef 11.07.2005 05:45 |
John S Stuart wrote: Good points, but I think that we are trying to academicalise something that may be far simpler.Academicalise?? John, I believe you have invented a word :))) |
| rhyeking 11.07.2005 11:31 |
On the 'In The Studio Interview/Radio Show' for 'News Of The World', Brian said they ran into the same problem with 'Sleeping On The Sidewalk'. They recorded this track as a live studio take, to get a different, more spontaneous feel for it. The band found each take was getting worse and worse. Brian said something to the effect of "the song was falling apart". He decided they'd nailed it as best they could on the first take and that's what ended up on the album. Sounds like the same thing happened here. Eight takes? Wow! |
| Adam Unger (QueenVault.com) 11.07.2005 13:08 |
RhyeKing: "This is a complete re-make of 'Keep Yourself Alive'. This version never surfaced anywhere. It contains many new ideas and quirks, as well as reproductions of some of the old ones." Brian's wording makes you think that perhaps the Long Lost "Retake" version came after Queen I. Perhaps Brian means "new" as in new to the public, as opposed to "post Queen I". |
| rhyeking 11.07.2005 18:41 |
Hey Adam, Cool to have a remote conversation via the message board! lol As I corrected earlier, by "after" I mean after the standard version was recorded, but during the first album's session in 1972. It would make little sense for the band to re-record the song after the first album was completed. The BBC recordings were only done to promote the band and the music, who already moved onto to work on their second album (Queen II) The only reasonable window of time for the LLRT of KYA to have been recorded was after the De Lane Lea Demos and before the end of the QUEEN sessions. They recorded in De Lane Lea in the fall of 1971 (possibly into the winter) and played only 5 gigs in 1972, because of John and Brian's school commitments, the quest to find a recording contract, the eventual signing with Trident and the down-time recording schedule (June thru November). My own guess is that June to November period, where the rest of the album was recorded. Has anyone heard any of the 5 1972 gigs on bootleg? I'd be curious to know which versions of KYA were played, which may give some insight as to how the "new ideas" evolved and what was abandoned. |
| Penetration_Guru 13.07.2005 16:07 |
I was just able to listen to the short version of this, and I have a view, for what worth. I have always understood the "long lost retake" to be an alternative performance/mix made during the first album sessions, cut to an acetate to play for people, and then forgotten about. Plenty of archive releases have included multiple takes of the same song - ELvis, The Beatles, Freddie Mercury, etc. There is no suggestion that "take 2" was made significantly later than "take 1" in any particular case. TO support this, consider "The Night Comes Down". The story I always understood was that subsequent Trident attempts to produce the song didn't better the original which was therefore used. There must therefore have been other "takes" of TNCD made throughout 1972. I think I'm starting to waffle, so will stop now. |
| rhyeking 14.07.2005 00:31 |
I’ll officially be the first to admit I was wrong in my early assessment of the evolution of “Keep Yourself Alive”. Off…waaaaay off. But hey, I never presumed to know everything… The following is as comprehensive a look at “Keep Yourself Alive” as I can give, given the new evidence present to me by my buddy, Andrew Reid, with whom I fleshed out the following new theory. Let’s start off with an excerpt from a transcript from a 1983 BBC Radio Interview with Brian May (from this site: link ): “Brian May: The first recording of it ever was in De Lane Lea when we did it ourselves and I’ve still got that recording and I think it’s very good and has something which the single never had. But THEY pressurised us very strongly to redo all the tracks and we redid ‘Keep Yourself Alive’ with Roy and it was pretty awful, actually. I thought it was terrible and I was very unhappy about it and I thought the De Lane Lea one was better and I eventually managed to persuade Roy that it was better as well. So, we went back in and did it again in a way that was a bit more true to the original. But there is no way that you can ever really repeat something. I have this great belief that the magic of the moment can never be recaptured and, although we ended up with something that was technically in the playing and perhaps even in the recording a bit better than the De Lane Lea thing. I still think that the De Lane Lea one had that certain sort of magic, so I was never really happy. As it turned out no one else was ever really happy either and we kept remixing it. We thought that it’s the mix that’s wrong, we kept remixing and there must have been, at least, seven or eight different mixes by different groups of people. Eventually we went in and did a mix with Mike Stone, our engineer, and that’s the one that we were in the end happiest with. That’s the one we put out. But, to my mind ‘Keep Yourself Alive’ was never really satisfactory. Never had that magic that it should have had.” So, here’s my interpretation of what that means: Version #1: the De Lane Lea demo, recorded and mixed in the fall of 1971. Version #2: the Long Lost Re-take, recorded in the summer of 1972. This version is listed as the “Long Lost Original Version” on the Crown Jewels KYA Promo CD single, from 1998. The LLOV is the same mix as the LLRT. It lends credibility to the this theory, that this version is called “Original” on an officially released product, as it’s the original version recorded for the album, at the record company and Roy Thomas Baker’s (initially) request. The “THEY” of which Brian speaks, who didn’t like the De Lane Lea “demo” version. On the acetate is a slightly different mix (the original mix), and an edit of that mix (the Long Version and Short Version respectively). When Hollywood Records put together the re-issue of Queen’s first album (Queen, CD 61064), the take was uncovered, dusted off, and mixed and remastered for that CD issue. It was possibly remastered again in 1998 for the “Crown Jewels” ‘Keep Yourself Alive’ Promotional CD single. Why cut the acetate? So the powers-that-be could give it a listen and test which length worked better. Or the band could pass it around and say, “is this as bad as *we* think it is?” Version #3: the Album version, recorded *after* the LLRT version, because Brian was quite unsatisfied with that version. It then goes through “seven or eight” different remixes, before Mike Stone mixes it as close to Brian’s satisfaction as possible. It was then edited by Elektra in the US and Canada, from 3:47 to 3:30. Version #4: the 1st BBC session version. Recorded new on Feb. 5th, it’s again an attempt both recreate the De Lane Lea version and the Album version, to promote the forthcoming album. Version #5: the 2nd BBC session version. Recorded as a mixture of the album version and new vocals and guitar. Again, to promote the 1st album. This is my revised |
| John S Stuart 14.07.2005 02:57 |
rhyeking: "Let’s start off with an excerpt from a transcript from a 1983 BBC Radio Interview with Brian May" Yes, this is the Alexis Korner interview I refered to above. Well spotted. If I knew it was on-line, I would have used it sooner. Also, this is what I have been saying all along, namely that this version exists BETWEEN De Lane Lea and The Album version. (If you re-read the thread you will see that this is so). While I have not had the confidence to say for sure it was an EMI recording, nevertheless, I was still able to pinpoint it to this point in time - and it feels good to have one's "working out" independantly verified, so thank you. I have no problem with "reasons" why acetates exist because, as PG correctly states, many Beatles (and Queen) discs were cut as a record of the evening's performance - and were later taken home by band members or even the sound staff (engineers). It is also interesting to note (even though we knew this before) that Brian kept his own acetate and that he still owns his original KYA demo on this format. (Though we can all share this version via the original demo tape). Because the "retake" was cut by an third party (neither Trident or EMI) I initially thought it may lend credence to a "downtime" version - but in the light of you latest posting, that does not really matter any more, as it would appear that "time" and not "place" is the all important bit. As said previously, this is what I think Queenzone does well. It is a forum open to ideas, and by sharing and revising these ideas, we can push the Queen envelope forwards, and I enjoy reading threads where I can learn that little something, that I never knew before, and this thread is a prime example of that. All that is left, is for someone to distill all the information from this thread and turn it into a succinct article - then post it on Queenonline. Let's show those bugg*rs how it is REALLY done! |
| Wilki Amieva 14.07.2005 16:01 |
I agree with you both. The musical "disruption" I was referring earlier is well explained in the interview. I have also heard it again very recently (could not find the CD). ...And there THEY have it! By the way, the 1998 promo CD single has EXACTLY the same version as the HR release of QUEEN's first album. No remastering there. |
| rhyeking 14.07.2005 17:24 |
Yeah, I wasn't sure if the LLRT/LLOV had been remastered again or not on the "Crown Jewels" promo. I gave them a listen and didn't hear a difference, but hey, you never know sometimes. How succinct should the final report be? Should it include the different theories proposed, or just the final analysis, including the quote? Patrick Lemieux Phoenix - Queen Radio link all Queen (and related) all the time |
| ferdy 14.10.2005 12:01 |
I think if some of you can edit this thread it would be great. I'm not so good in english writing so it would be better if done by someone else. I suggest a sort of article signed by Queenzone.com and the sent to the Record Collector's Digging for gold section. What do you think??? |
| jabbo5150 14.10.2005 12:42 |
Agreed on the upload on both counts: thanks for sharing and can someone reupload it :-) I don't think he reduced the value of his acetate at all. The Beatles put the Quarrymen stuff on teh Anthology discs and those tapes sold for a LOT of money not all that long ago. A copy is what it is. A copy. Cool to have to listen to, but obviously not the same as the real deal in terms of value. I have an acetate of the first cheap trick album and man does that shellac they made it on stink, lol |
| Rick 14.10.2005 15:24 |
Ferdy, you own this acetate? |
| John S Stuart 14.10.2005 19:22 |
YES - He owns the acetate. |
| rhyeking 12.11.2005 15:34 |
Ferdy, is the Long version on your acetate the same mix as the Short version (only longer)? You see, the Short version and the Official Long Lost Re-take issue have distinct mixing differencing (not including the edit). Most noticable to me, the vocals at the end of the second chorus are different, as well as the guitar and drum sounds in some places. Would posting your Long version be a violation of the "no Officially released stuff" rule, since it's a different mix? Just asking, as I'd like to hear the Long Version on the acetate. Rhyeking |
| Teo_torriate04 12.11.2005 18:40 |
John S Stuart wrote: Good points, but I think that we are trying to academicalise something that may be far simpler. I will need to look out the Alexis Korner BBC radio interview wherein Brian says that 8 different takes of KYA exist, and then he goes on to explain why. From memory he states that each recording lacked something, or that they were unhappy with the mix, or the sound, but they kept returning to the original version because it sounded raw and unpolished. I think if I find the interview, I will transcribe it here, as it very likely, will answer many of your questions.I have sent a taped copy of Brians interview with Alexis Corner from 1983 to PG who has promised to make it available to everyone here just as soon as he can. (It's in the post as I type, Mr Guru). |
| CD 25.07.2007 10:59 |
can somebody please, please, please share this again. I would be very grateful. |
| seba_979 26.07.2007 00:53 |
CD wrote: can somebody please, please, please share this again. I would be very grateful.Email me at f40_f50_enzo@yahoo.com and i'm send this to you. |
| andy1962 05.08.2007 14:32 |
i would like to know how many years have you owned this as a few years ago i used to sell queen records all over the uk and usa at record fairs and remember being offered some acates by another dealer,who had told me that he had someone who could get as many as i wanted pressed up and your label looks alot like the one's he was selling,he had also told me that he had put a john lennon one into a auction house and sold it for lots of money ?????i'm not saying this is a fake but pleaselet me know how long you have owned it thanks |
| predator1 09.08.2007 16:08 |
just read the whole of this thread...very interesting! i once owned acopy of the trident labelled KYA,it was very different in many respects,more raw in the sound,some of the guitar work sounded a lot different to the original release.don't get me wrong i'm no audio expert but i know when it sounds different having listened to the original, must be thousands of times.I bought this in the early eighties from a reputable record dealer that used to advertise in many a music mag for 50 pounds..yep 50quid!! But to put a twist in (and start a new thread?) not only did they send me that but when it arrived there was a copy of ' JESUS' also acetate on the said trident label!! I don't know if this has ever been mentioned before or if anyone knew it existed, but i played both tracks only once, wished i'd had the foresite to tape them but you know when you can't wait to hear something new!! I ended up selling the framed pair which had become my prized possession for 600pounds in the mid nineties out of nessessity to a record dealer, who then sold them to a queen collector in austria. i would dearly love to know if he's still own's them or could anyone shed any light on the 'jesus' one, quite a different recording i remember, with different lyrics! |
| The Real Wizard 09.08.2007 22:42 |
predator1 wrote: just read the whole of this thread...very interesting! i once owned acopy of the trident labelled KYA,it was very different in many respects,more raw in the sound,some of the guitar work sounded a lot different to the original release.don't get me wrong i'm no audio expert but i know when it sounds different having listened to the original, must be thousands of times.I bought this in the early eighties from a reputable record dealer that used to advertise in many a music mag for 50 pounds..yep 50quid!! But to put a twist in (and start a new thread?) not only did they send me that but when it arrived there was a copy of ' JESUS' also acetate on the said trident label!! I don't know if this has ever been mentioned before or if anyone knew it existed, but i played both tracks only once, wished i'd had the foresite to tape them but you know when you can't wait to hear something new!! I ended up selling the framed pair which had become my prized possession for 600pounds in the mid nineties out of nessessity to a record dealer, who then sold them to a queen collector in austria. i would dearly love to know if he's still own's them or could anyone shed any light on the 'jesus' one, quite a different recording i remember, with different lyrics!Very interesting post! So I'm assuming you didn't make a copy of the song itself.. ? |
| andy1962 10.08.2007 02:01 |
predator1 wrote: just read the whole of this thread...very interesting! i once owned acopy of the trident labelled KYA,it was very different in many respects,more raw in the sound,some of the guitar work sounded a lot different to the original release.don't get me wrong i'm no audio expert but i know when it sounds different having listened to the original, must be thousands of times.I bought this in the early eighties from a reputable record dealer that used to advertise in many a music mag for 50 pounds..yep 50quid!! But to put a twist in (and start a new thread?) not only did they send me that but when it arrived there was a copy of ' JESUS' also acetate on the said trident label!! I don't know if this has ever been mentioned before or if anyone knew it existed, but i played both tracks only once, wished i'd had the foresite to tape them but you know when you can't wait to hear something new!! I ended up selling the framed pair which had become my prized possession for 600pounds in the mid nineties out of nessessity to a record dealer, who then sold them to a queen collector in austria. i would dearly love to know if he's still own's them or could anyone shed any light on the 'jesus' one, quite a different recording i remember, with different lyrics!if i remember a 10" acatate(1 sided) of jesus floating around the record fairs also a seven seas of rhye 7" acatate(2 sided???)and the night come's down 12" 1 sided acatate.but i found most of them looked a bit iffy |
| Dane 21.08.2007 18:06 |
Would someone please be so kind to share this short version mp3 again, or email it to me?? I missed out on the first share :( thnx! daneqvl@gmail.com |
| Mike S. 22.08.2007 01:00 |
Yea, I'd like a copy as well. mschelthoff@gmail.com |
| AppleQueen 02.09.2007 18:38 |
Yes, could someone please re-upload it. Thanks a lot. |
| SalmonSilver 30.01.2008 02:43 |
Hello! is it possible to re-upload this track.. i sort of missed the call.. :( many thanks! :) |