| unknown 11.10.2006 15:47 |
Hello everybody; I'd like to ask you whether someone of you knows if there is a version of 'Mad The Swine' with a complete opening, i.e. so that you can hear the intro and the complete first line of the song. Thank you! |
| Rien 11.10.2006 16:19 |
Complete opening? Do I miss out on something? In my view the song just start with "Been here before" |
| escuderodelareina 11.10.2006 16:32 |
hmmm...that version (the headlong´s b-side)was remixed i think.there must be another version. |
| unknown 11.10.2006 16:56 |
I also know the version which begins with 'Been here before' (Queen In Nuce, if I'm right), but somewhere I read (although it sounds a little bit stupid) that someone forgot to switch 'record' at time and as a result some seconds of the beginning were not recorded. So maybe there is a version with the complete line of the song and not just the 'fade in' sound. |
| Jan78 11.10.2006 17:07 |
There you go link and link |
| unknown 11.10.2006 17:28 |
Thank you very much - Danke für die Info:)! |
| Deacon Fan 11.10.2006 17:53 |
Hehe. Look at the contradictions in that fairy tale. First it's labeled a 'remix', then suddenly it can't be a remix because they had to remove a bit of the intro. Then again in fairy tale part 2 it's stated that Hollywood got the original masters, etc. The FACT is the 1991 remasters were a joint effort and some were actually done in the UK by Queen's own masterer Kevin Metcalfe. But anyway... Yes there's some mystery about the intro. I believe it fades in slightly on the 'Nuce' version and the Hollywood & Headlong version starts a bit abruptly. Perhaps someday we'll know the actual story :) |
| John S Stuart 11.10.2006 18:21 |
Bubbles! wrote: Hehe. Look at the contradictions in that fairy tale. First it's labeled a 'remix', then suddenly it can't be a remix because they had to remove a bit of the intro. Then again in fairy tale part 2 it's stated that Hollywood got the original masters, etc. The FACT is the 1991 remasters were a joint effort and some were actually done in the UK by Queen's own masterer Kevin Metcalfe. But anyway... Yes there's some mystery about the intro. I believe it fades in slightly on the 'Nuce' version and the Hollywood & Headlong version starts a bit abruptly. Perhaps someday we'll know the actual story :)No - no fairy tales. It all revolves around the word 'remix' and expectations. This has been discussed here before - so you can use your own search. |
| John S Stuart 11.10.2006 18:24 |
As I am in a good mood: Mad The Swine (Written post Barry Mitchell) Roger Taylor, Freddie Mercury & Roy Thomas Baker argued about the strength of drums in the final mix, so eventually dropped. Originally featured between Great King Rat & My Fairy King. 1991 release is a remastered - NOT a remixed version US 1991 3:23 Remix - Queen: US 1991 Hollywood HR-61064-2 Original Trident Studio Version - Unreleased 1991 release - a remastered or a remixed version? In 1973, the Original Queen Eponymous tape was sent to Electra USA in the form of a safety master. Electra EQ'd that safety master so the subsequently released US LP sounded more "flat". Mad The Swine was similarly Eq'd by Hollwood in 1991 - it was copied from a safety master (not elements) and it was the remaster from that safety copy which was released. When "Mad The Swine" safety master was flown out to Dave Richards, the band knew that it could not be "remixed" but it could be "enhanced" - ie a cleaner reproduction which could be EQ'd - but not classically "remixed". So it is the "same" version - but different mastering - hence a new "remix" - or "remixed by Queen & David Richards" as it states on the sleeve. To show that "Mad The Swine" came from the safety master (and not from the actual master mixes) the introduction to the version we know and love has actually been cut by about one or two seconds. Right at the end of "Great King Rat", Roger ends on a final drum solo (Roll?). This solo fades out to a stop, and "My Fairy King" starts with a clean guitar intro. You can hear this still - whatever version of the disc you have. But "Mad The Swine" used to sit between both before it was removed from the final album. What should have happened is that Roger's final drum solo was ever so slightly longer and it segued into "Mad The Swine". Obviously to start the 1991 version of "Mad The Swine" with the final (bar?) beat of a faded drumroll sounded "incorrect" - but there was no way that this final beat could be removed. (If they had the master mixes this would have been no problem - but because it was from a safety master - it could not be "un-mixed" or removed). So to overcome this problem, they simply "cut-out", the final drumbeat and edited "Mad The Swine" to start a second or so later. You can still hear this today - if you know what you are listening for. The track should begin "I've been here before". (notice the word "I've"). But because the "tail" of the final "Great King Rat" segue coincided with "I've" - "I've" was cut from the final edit - so the song now begins "Been here before". (I think "I've been..." is the actual official lyric). "Great King Rat" posed no such problem, because the track was faded out a second or so earlier - the segue did not exist. |
| John S Stuart 11.10.2006 18:26 |
FAQ: John, I'm confused here. You say that the 1991 release is a remix. Then later you say it is not a remix. I'm sure I must be reading it wrong or something... Also, it's interesting that RTB won the day, and it was dropped...just how much say does a producer have over these things? Mad The Swine US 1991 3:23 Remix Queen: US 1991 Hollywood HR-61064-2 Original Trident Studio Version Unreleased: (Roger Taylor & Roy Thomas Baker argued about the strength of drums in the final mix, so eventually dropped. Originally featured between Great King Rat & My Fairy King. 1991 release NOT a remix) Answer 1: It is confusing isn't it - it's all to do with identification and the interpretation of "remixing". First - Mad The Swine US 1991 3:23 Remix Queen: US 1991 Hollywood HR-61064-2 - This is a title or identification mark. The same could be said of other tracks like "Liar" US 7" edit. My point is that the additional information (US 7") seperates it from other "Liar" versions. Second: When "Mad The Swine" was first released in 1991, it was delivered as a "remix" on the Hollywood re-issues. (Same as "Seven Seas Of Rhye" and Rick Ruben's "We Will Rock You"). I am sure that "Mad The Swine" was "tweaked" in 1991 to be more in keeping with Roger's original ideas - but I would argue this was more of "remastering" than "remixing". When this question was asked at Queenzone - a poster called Juls posted this info: The main difference between remaster and remix: A remaster is a re-mix too, with the difference, that the original tapes are used and the sound is enhanced, according to the modern technologies. A remaster should sound like an imporved original record. With modern technology it is possible to clear the tracks, to lift and lower frequencies here and there, to achieve an official sound. A remix uses the original tapes too, but with the main difference, that some parts from the original recordings are missing, or that other takes are used, or even - for example the Seven Seas Of Rhye remixes on Hollywood - new beats, synths, samples etc. A remaster should never cut away something, which is audible in the original release. The best option is to have the engineer/producer who recorded the original tapes doing the remaster. Remasters are quite important nowadays, because our equipment changed over the last 20-30 years - drastically - remember vinyl, and with the modern way of remastering we can achieve a sound that is necessary for the equipment used today. The only problem is, that a remasters quality is always depending on the remastering engineer, and if he has no relation to the original recording, or the band, the sound itself, a remaster can be quite disappointing. Returning to "Mad The Swine", To dig myself into a deeper hole, I am sure that they could "lift the drums" or "lower the guitar" BUT (and here is the big bit) it was the original releasable take used - and it was "equallised" TRUER to the original cut. Answer 2: The fact that the original multitrack tapes were taken in to a studio and MIXED again would suggest it had been remixed. OK - it was remixed - but remixed in the same way as "The Game" or "The Night At The Opera" DVDA. So you tell me - Bo Rhap. 1975 - or 2000? Sorry, I don't meant to get into an argument here, I wanted to simplify - not confuse. For me, (and I confess my studio knowledge is limited) the word remix has conotations of a completely different track or song. I don't really need to give examples surely, but "Seven Seas Of Rhye" and "Seven Seas Of Rhye" (remix ) to me (and to a lot others) means that they are two different beasts. "Stone Cold Crazy", "Tie Your Mother Down", "We Will Rock You", etc, |
| John S Stuart 11.10.2006 18:31 |
Answer 4: (Kes - Queen online) Over the years, I've asked and talked to one or two people pertinent to the story. Here's the result of that. Back into the history of the song and quite why it appeared when it did. Sometime around the time that the Hollywood deal was signed, it was decided that a trawl would happen to find out what mastertapes were where, and exactly what were all those cans full of, that were kicking around the basement. Brian said he'd check out round his house, and his parent's house (it was in this particular trawl that the Long Lost re-take of 'Keep Yourself Alive' was rediscovered, located and restored), and Roger would do the same. Meanwhile, anyone with a free moment around Pembridge Road was collared into collecting together the cans of studio tape that were lurking around the premises, and jotting down on a list what was in what can, if indeed it was identified. I think it was Jacky (from the fanclub) that told me she found that particular can, along with a few others, and when she mentioned some of her finds to the band at a meeting at the offices, that a face or two lit up, when that one was mentioned, and that the tape was then run out to Dave Richards in Montreux with a cue sheet ('wants' list) from the band, for what was then stated on the record sleeve as a remix. I guess I'm using a little logic here along with the elements of my questions I had answered, in that I fail to see quite why Dave Richards would have got his name on the production credits (right there on the record sleeve for 'Headlong', where the song was a bonus track), unless he'd done something noticable with the track. Either way, when I asked Jacky why it had taken nearly 20 years to get released, she said the version that came out was in keeping with Freddie's original plan for the song, not Roy Thomas Baker's. Answer 5: SParker wrote: So, it is a remix then. I'm sure it even says on the sleeve thats its remixed by Queen & David Richards? If it had been merely remastered, it would have just stated "remastered by D. Richards at (whatever studio)" in v small print. Although, they dont tend to go into such detail on single artwork. All this seems to tie-together, and basically we are still singing from the same hymn-sheet, (or should that be carol at this time of year?) but the point remains - it was copied from a safety master (not elements) and it was the remaster from that safety copy which was released. In otherwords, as Kes has pointed out earlier, "one of the reasons all remasters... were cut from the original STEREO mastermix tapes... the only way you are going to get a clean signal composite, is to revisit the original mastertape and attempt to clean up every track on the 16/24 track masters". When "Mad The Swine" safety master was flown out to Dave Richards, the band knew that it could not be "remixed" but it could be "enhanced" - ie a cleaner reproduction which could be EQ'd - but not classically "remixed". So it is the "same" version. Sparker: You are correct - it does state on the sleeve "remixed by Queen & David Richards" - that's why I said at the start "Mad The Swine Remix" (because I did not give it this title of identification - they did), but I also say it was not a "remix" (because it was not a remix - in the sense that the original mix was not altered - but balanced slightly differently from the stereo safety master copy) - Pheww!!!!!!!!!!! To make maters worse, and to show that "Mad The Swine" did come from the safety master (and not from the actual master mixes) the version we know and love has actually been cut by about one or two seconds. Right at the end of "Great King Rat", Roger ends on a final drum solo (Roll?). This solo fades out to a stop, and "My Fairy King" starts with a clean guitar intro. You can hear this sti |
| John S Stuart 11.10.2006 18:32 |
Bubbles: If you wish to read the whole unfolding saga - you can: link But basically - Mad The Swine (Written post Barry Mitchell era - c1973) Roger Taylor, Freddie Mercury & Roy Thomas Baker argued about the strength of drums in the final mix, so eventually dropped. Originally featured between Great King Rat & My Fairy King. 1991 release is a remastered - NOT a remixed version To show that "Mad The Swine" came from the safety master (and not from the actual master mixes) the introduction to the version we know and love has actually been cut by about one or two seconds. Obviously to start the 1991 version of "Mad The Swine" with the final (bar?) beat of a faded/segued drumroll sounded "incorrect" - but there was no way that this final beat could be removed. So to overcome this problem, they simply edited "Mad The Swine" to start a second or so later. You can still hear this today - if you know what you are listening for. The track should begin "I've been here before". (notice the word "I've"). But because the "tail" of the final "Great King Rat" segue coincided with "I've" - "I've" was cut from the final edit - so the song now begins "Been here before". (I think "I've been..." is the actual official lyric). "Great King Rat" posed no such problem, because the track was faded out a second or so earlier - the segue did not exist |
| John S Stuart 11.10.2006 18:36 |
Phew... ! |
| John S Stuart 11.10.2006 18:37 |
<b><font color=B22222>daria k. wrote: Hello everybody; I'd like to ask you whether someone of you knows if there is a version of 'Mad The Swine' with a complete opening, i.e. so that you can hear the intro and the complete first line of the song. Thank you!If you read the above... NO! |
| Deacon Fan 11.10.2006 20:44 |
An explanation of remaster vs. remix really wasn't required (however many times over). Post a 10 second sound clip of "_I've_" blending with the end of Great King Rat to back yourself up, otherwise there's no proof (that part) of your tale. |
| John S Stuart 11.10.2006 21:55 |
Bubbles! wrote: An explanation of remaster vs. remix really wasn't required (however many times over). Post a 10 second sound clip of "_I've_" blending with the end of Great King Rat to back yourself up, otherwise there's no proof (that part) of your tale.I do not have a sound clip to post. But, this info is kosher and came from a very close 'insider' source. Besides, if you Google 'Mad The Swine' or search for the 'Official' lyrics - you will see that the track should begin with the missing line I suggest. Failing that I suggest you contact Brian May direct. Again, why do you keep suggesting that Queenzone posters only post fairy-tales, when you have no evidence to suggest the contrary? It's not that any one in here is trying to pollute the info, indeed, I thought we were all trying to push forwards. So unless YOU can PROVE otherwise - what makes you so judgemental? |
| YourValentine 12.10.2006 08:15 |
Thanks for writing up this extensive answer, John - who could ask for more. |
| Deacon Fan 12.10.2006 10:40 |
Oh I don't doubt the word _I've_ needing to be there. It's printed right in my Hollywood 'Queen' CD foldout, no need to Google. And this theory about how it lost the intro is as good as any other and may very well be true. But in life, we don't prove things to be untrue... instead we (try to) prove them to be true. If Greg or Brian or someone of that nature wishes to confirm this, I'll take it as the truth, but otherwise I consider it merely a theory until proven :) |
| john bodega 12.10.2006 11:04 |
Between the reliability of Brian's failing memory and Greg Brooks' sometimes-errors... thats a pretty silly position to take. It makes sense. It's as confirmed as it'll ever be. |