| Munchsack 03.11.2005 08:27 |
Posted this a while back, but no-one responded. Anyone know why Under Pressure was cut out of the CD? I'm assuming for copyright reasons, but I'd like to know. |
| Togg 03.11.2005 08:39 |
I think without doubt gaining copywrite would have been an issue therefore cutting it was the easy option. |
| Munchsack 03.11.2005 08:41 |
Was that copyright from Bowie? |
| PieterMC 03.11.2005 08:50 |
It was never intended to be on the CD or DVD. It has nothing to do with copyright. |
| Togg 03.11.2005 08:50 |
Yes, he shared the writing credits. |
| Togg 03.11.2005 08:52 |
What makes you believe that it was never intended to go on CD/DVD? they have never stated this. |
| PieterMC 03.11.2005 08:57 |
Simon Lupton said, it's because the band were conscious that the filming takes away from the concert experience somewhat, with different lightning etc. They wanted one track where fans could get the same atmosphere as fans at other venues, with no filming lights etc. |
| Fenderek 03.11.2005 08:58 |
Togg wrote: What makes you believe that it was never intended to go on CD/DVD? they have never stated this.Yes, they bloody did. At the gig, just before the song Brian said taht it's only for the audience at the venue and it won't be on DVD. Simple as that. I think that shopuld cover the "they stated it" bit... BTW- I was there and heard it perfectly clear... |
| Togg 03.11.2005 09:04 |
Well done numpty, but the reason was COPYWRITE if you really think it was because thye didn't want it on the CD then you don't understand simple business issues. They had to play it because it's been such a hit, however Mr Bowie has put up many barriers in the past for putting it out on disk |
| PieterMC 03.11.2005 09:05 |
Togg wrote: Well done numpty, but the reason was COPYWRITE if you really think it was because thye didn't want it on the CD then you don't understand simple business issues. They had to play it because it's been such a hit, however Mr Bowie has put up many barriers in the past for putting it out on diskI am affraid that you are talking complete crap. It was never going to be on the CD or DVD. Period. |
| Ayreon 03.11.2005 09:08 |
Crap indeed. Queen owns the copyright. It's been on GH2 and 3, on the DVD's, etc.. It was just played in sheffield for the fans |
| Togg 03.11.2005 09:10 |
Just think about that for a moment, now does it really make sense to decide to drop one song from the DVD to please the audience, which just happens to be the one song they have to get approval to use! |
| Togg 03.11.2005 09:11 |
Sorry but Queen only own part copywrite, period. |
| PieterMC 03.11.2005 09:11 |
Are you smoking crack???? A) It was never going to be on the DVD or CD B) It sounded pretty crap anyway C) IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COPYRIGHT |
| Togg 03.11.2005 09:17 |
Do you have any idea of the process of including it in a release, never mind dividing royalties afterwards, of course it's a major part of the issue. Besides they played it after Sheffield, so it was not just a one off for the fans in Sheffield |
| PieterMC 03.11.2005 09:23 |
Oh sorry I guess you must be right. That's why they put Reaching Out, Imagine and Let There Be Drums on there and cut out one of their own songs. To save money. Gotcha. |
| Togg 03.11.2005 09:38 |
You make a good point, however, every track has to be approved for use, and sometimes that can be more trouble than it's worth, (particularly with some management teams) based on past experience my guess is it was a business decision rather than a creative one. |
| Fenderek 03.11.2005 10:18 |
Togg wrote: Just think about that for a moment, now does it really make sense to decide to drop one song from the DVD to please the audience, which just happens to be the one song they have to get approval to use!And whio is numpty here? Brian said staright away that this is NOT going to be on the album and DVD. So they dropped it. As much as I have no idea what's behind that decission- you haven't one either. It's all speculation. All I was pointing out was that they stated it, as clearly as possible. It was NEVER going to be released. It wasn't CONSIDERED to be released. They were saying that from the start. Period. |
| Togg 03.11.2005 10:37 |
Reap as you sow my friend! The 'numpty' was directed at your tone. |
| John S Stuart 03.11.2005 10:42 |
The reason "Under Pressure" was not released, was so that the live audience would have a "special treat" of their own, (a sort of bonus track if you like) for buying the tickets, turning up, supporting the band, and being there. So it's all about the band, doing something EXTRA for the LIVE fans, (a bit like "Teo..." in Japan, or Tavas..." in Budapest). Brian stated it was not going out on CD or DVD, and (I paraphrase) because it "was meant as a thank-you" (or something like that). When Queenonline announced the planned set-list, it was also announced that "Under Pressure" would NOT be included for this reason. Moreover, I think the tours official "journalist", Thomas Zeidler, also says similar on his site: link So what is the problem? You are upset because the band decided to give a little something special to those in attendance? Other exclusives to the show, well Erin's famous "hawt dawgs" spring to mind, but, I don't really grudge that either. |
| Togg 03.11.2005 10:53 |
John You are the one person on this board that I feel is able to answer such questions properly, so I bow to your knowledge. Having said that, it is still only speculation as to the reason as neither of us were in the meeting that decided it, and probably Jim Beach was! I think the 'treat' for the fans is a plausable reason, however, why then go on to play it after Sheffield? My point all a long has been based on speculation but I am amused at the aggression some seem to throw into such debates when they know no more than you or I, as to the best of my knowledge Queenzoners are not invited to band meetings! Whatever Brian states in the concert to the crowd doesn't mean that's the only reason behind it. |
| John S Stuart 03.11.2005 11:20 |
Togg wrote: ...neither of us were in the meeting that decided it, and probably Jim Beach was! Whatever Brian states in the concert to the crowd doesn't mean that's the only reason behind it.First: True - but you assume that this was a pre-conceived decision that MAY not be the case, it could have been improvised, I don't know. Second: Also True - it may be that because it was (if I recall correctly) the first performance of "Under Pressure" and they feared they could cock-up, or that it would not be good enough, and did not want this "unprofessional" track on the disc. (Remember, by the time Sheffield came along, the rest of the show was pretty well oiled). Generally: Your mail is also substantially true, we do NOT know the real reason behind the decisions, and perhaps we never will, but on a list of probabilities and alternatives, (as Pieter has previously suggested) I think copyright alone would be at the bottom of the pile. However, that is only my (and Pieter's) opinions. Of course, as we can not demonstrate this beyond any doubt, your opinion may still be as valid as ours, but on a scale of probabilities, it may be slightly different. |
| Togg 03.11.2005 11:28 |
Gentlemen, I think we have done good work here and put it to bed once and for all... Last one out's a stinker! |
| Erin 03.11.2005 11:32 |
John S Stuart wrote: Other exclusives to the show, well Erin's famous "hawt dawgs" spring to mind, but, I don't really grudge that either.Yay..the haawt daawg is now famous! LMAO ;-D |
| Fenderek 03.11.2005 12:19 |
John S Stuart wrote: Second: Also True - it may be that because it was (if I recall correctly) the first performance of "Under Pressure" and they feared they could cock-up, or that it would not be good enough, and did not want this "unprofessional" track on the disc.It wasn't the first time. They played it for the first time in Manchester, announced by Peter Kay. But I recall them saying as well- "We feel it's better to play bad version of UNDER PRESSURE than not play it at all". And I think Brian did say somewhere indeed about the fact that this version was very "sketchy" and... well, at the same gig he also said they aren't even sure who should sing which part... But to cut the story short- it was THIRD time they played Under Pressuer, after Manchester and Birmingham. The song indeed wasn't rehearsed many times- they just did it at few sounchecks... |
| Cwazy little thing 03.11.2005 14:20 |
And it would make sense not to release a song on cd and dvd that wasnt up to the standard of the rest of the tracks - its surely that simple. |
| John S Stuart 03.11.2005 14:49 |
Fenderek<br><h6>Not a REAL fan</h6> wrote:OK - as I said, I was just talking from memory - but I knew it was "new" to the set, and fairly unrehearsed, (in comparison to the rest of the set), I guess then, this may be the reason after all.John S Stuart wrote: Second: Also True - it may be that because it was (if I recall correctly) the first performance of "Under Pressure" and they feared they could cock-up, or that it would not be good enough, and did not want this "unprofessional" track on the disc.It wasn't the first time...But to cut the story short- it was THIRD time they played Under Pressuer, after Manchester and Birmingham. The song indeed wasn't rehearsed many times- they just did it at few sounchecks... |
| John S Stuart 03.11.2005 14:53 |
Erin wrote:I am still working on that drawl...John S Stuart wrote: Other exclusives to the show, well Erin's famous "hawt dawgs" spring to mind, but, I don't really grudge that either.Yay..the haawt daawg is now famous! LMAO ;-D Ha-awt da-awg - is that better now? Togg: "Gentlemen, I think we have done good work here..." 'Tis the reason Queenzone exists! |