January 3: all albums get digital release by Island Records

YourValentine wrote: "bisher unveröffentlichtes Material" means previously unreleased sound material - definitely not some photos or new liner notes. You can trust my command of the German language with that.
=====

I am fully aware of the fact that you are a native speaker, but "unveröffentliches Material" is the literal equivalent of the English "unreleased material(s)" (the plural would depend on what is referred to), the Dutch "niet eerder uitgebracht materiaal", and the French "material(s) inédit" (see English). I happen to have a native speaker of German in the house with me right now, and she agrees that you cannot derive the nature of said "Material" from the above sentence alone. Sleevenotes can be, and have been, referred to as "Material" in the past.

Adam Baboolal wrote:

[QUOTE]When I compared the old 88 remasters with the newer 2009 remasters, I was rather taken aback at how they'd changed. Sometimes quite radically.[/QUOTE]

I've heard Help, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper, and Abbey Road... and there is no difference in the actual sound.  There were incredibly minor imperfections in the sound removed here and there, and Abbey Road went through some hiss reduction.  But it's the same bad stereo mixes (hard left and right), and the EQ has barely been changed (if at all).  I compared the two versions side by side in a professional studio environment.  If you turn up the volume of the 1988 versions, the sound is virtually identical.  The only major change from 1988 to 2009 is this volume increase to about 150% - which merely makes the remasters the next instalment in the loudness war... but with pretty artwork.

The 1999 version of Yellow Submarine was an incredible improvement - new EQ, new stereo mixes (making virtually all parts sound more clear and full), and a bit of compression (which I could have done without, but it doesn't harm the sound).  This is how the 2009 remasters should have been done.  To me it's the biggest loss in the history of modern popular music that The Beatles' catalogue was not given the treatment it deserves.

I'm curious.. what exactly blew your socks off?

ThomasQuinn wrote: YourValentine wrote: "bisher unveröffentlichtes Material" means previously unreleased sound material - definitely not some photos or new liner notes. You can trust my command of the German language with that.
=====

I am fully aware of the fact that you are a native speaker, but "unveröffentliches Material" is the literal equivalent of the English "unreleased material(s)" (the plural would depend on what is referred to), the Dutch "niet eerder uitgebracht materiaal", and the French "material(s) inédit" (see English). I happen to have a native speaker of German in the house with me right now, and she agrees that you cannot derive the nature of said "Material" from the above sentence alone. Sleevenotes can be, and have been, referred to as "Material" in the past.
=======================

Holy crap. The latin word for material is 'materia'.  Did like every country in the world get around to that word at 5:00 on a Friday and just say 'Screw it.  We'll just go with materia....l.  Done.  Now who's buying the drinks?'

I guess it will all be clear at the day of the release. Let's hope that they did learned something (QPL)

Never heard of the planned (?) FM tribute single. Anyone could enlight me?

GT wrote: They will all be worth waiting for.....roll on 2011.

////////////////////////

I soooo want to believe you, Gary :)

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]brians wig wrote:[/QUOTENAME] "Digital release"?
Doesn't that mean download rather than a physical copy?
I'm sorry, but unless i can have something tangible in my hands, they ain't getting my money again. [/QUOTE]

Oops, I only now noticed it. I hope that they don't seriously think that somebody will buy mp3s :-(

gregorsamsa wrote: Never heard of the planned (?) FM tribute single. Anyone could enlight me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No One But You (1997)? :)

Nah, I am in the dark here, as well. Anybody?

Cheers,

Ogre-

Oh, if it's just downloads, I won't be buying them, either.  Surely, everything would have a physical release, at some point, you would think.

As far as I know, they will all be getting a physical release, in several batches throughout 2011. This digital release will just be to get the albums out there so Universal can start making money from them.

The rumoured bonus material may or may not be included in the digital release, but if it is to be included it will definitely be on the physical release, be it a deluxe version with (an) extra disc(s) or a single disc version with a couple of bonus tracks tagged on the end.

Erin wrote: "Previously unreleased sound material" eh?  Sounds interesting...  I'm looking forward to seeing what comes of it.  Now, if Queen could just ditch Hollywood Records..
===================================

This, this, this so fucking this.

I find the prospect of unreleased stuff to be very exciting!

Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira wrote: gregorsamsa wrote: Never heard of the planned (?) FM tribute single. Anyone could enlight me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No One But You (1997)? :)

Nah, I am in the dark here, as well. Anybody?

Cheers,

Ogre-
Nah, not sure if any truth but apparently there is a release coming this month.  Heard it from a friend of a friend but supposed to be some validity to it, not sure if from the Queen camp (doubtful) or others.  Will dig a little more see what's up with it.

Actually...the 40th anniversary is 2013...right?    When the first studio l.p. was released?    I mean the Beatles (if this is a standard of comparision) don't celebrate their anniversary when they formed but when their first recording came out...single or l.p. or what have you.    I actually have started to take the opinion that they should wait until their fiftieth anniversary before they really release a ton of the archives...who cares about a fortieth anniversary?!    How absured...then again maybe I'm just wrong...I think it might be worth the wait personally and work out better for them and the catelog.

I think Queen has always marked 1971 as their beginning, basically when John joined in February (despite forming after Smile in 1970). 1981's Greatest Hits was the ten-year mark and 1991's Greatest Hits II was the twenty-year mark. I guess they couldn't wait for 2001 for the thirty-year mark (1999's GHIII). 

Rush, for example, had its R30 Tour (the 30th Anniversary) in 2004. 1974 was the year Neil Peart joined, after the band (with drummer John Rutsey) had already been around a few years and had a non-album single and a debut album.

AlexRocks wrote: Actually...the 40th anniversary is 2013...right?    When the first studio l.p. was released?    I mean the Beatles (if this is a standard of comparision) don't celebrate their anniversary when they formed but when their first recording came out...single or l.p. or what have you.    I actually have started to take the opinion that they should wait until their fiftieth anniversary before they really release a ton of the archives...who cares about a fortieth anniversary?!    How absured...then again maybe I'm just wrong...I think it might be worth the wait personally and work out better for them and the catelog.
 another 10 years for anything good?...now that would be absured.