Do the studio albums really need remastering?

What about the debut album? I always thought that it could be a better album with better production (specially the drums sound). Also, I would include other songs like Mad The Swine and Polar Bear (replacing The Night Comes Down), and change the Son&Daughter album version for the BBC Sessions one, but that's another story.

In my opinion, ADATR and NOTW are the best sounding records.

*goodco* wrote:
And add a third.....how about 'Live Killers'?  And, as a bonus, include 'FBG', 'It's Late', 'IYCB'em', and 'STL'.    

I think 'Live Killers' needs proper recreation from multitracks with complete remixing and omitted tracks in the right places in the setlist. The same thing with 'Live Magic' which also needs proper recreation of preferably the complete typical Magic Tour setlist compiled from best moment of same 4 concerts used for original album without any shortened versions of the songs.

Being a musician and having my own studio I would have to say that the whole 're-mastering' term is a pretty broad one.  Firstly, there is a big difference between re-mastering and remixing.  Mastering, is generally a process that occurs after the final mix has been made.  In the old days (pre-digital), this mean't that all the tracks had been EQ'd, panned, bounced, and levelled.  The engineer and producer would sit together (usually with the band) and hit play.  As the song played back they would in real-time tweak and manipulate the individual tracks as to how they wanted various changes in the song to occur.  When the playback stopped, the master track would be played back and listened to.  The mix of the master track would have to be re-done until an acceptable master track had been agreed upon.  This could take hours, days, or even weeks!  Then the true mastering would really only begin.  The stereo master would be analyzed and further levelling, noise reduction or boosting, eq'ing, compression, and so on, would be applied.

Who knows if anything will be done to further enhance Queen's recordings.  For one thing, I doubt they will touch the mixing side.  Too complicated and not to mention that some of the original parts of the multitracks are probably missing (yes, gone forever! 'Coming Soon' - the opening vocals weren't on the multitracks when 'The Game' was remixed for surround sound) or can't be used due to some sort of damage.  I do think that remastering will happen - but I can't tell you how or when!

Well i have not got all the albums and was planning to get the rest of them in the next few months, now shall i wait till the remasters where they are probably expensive or just go to Amazon and get them quite cheap?

youngballantyne wrote: Being a musician and having my own studio I would have to say that the whole 're-mastering' term is a pretty broad one.  Firstly, there is a big difference between re-mastering and remixing.  Mastering, is generally a process that occurs after the final mix has been made.  In the old days (pre-digital), this mean't that all the tracks had been EQ'd, panned, bounced, and levelled.  The engineer and producer would sit together (usually with the band) and hit play.  As the song played back they would in real-time tweak and manipulate the individual tracks as to how they wanted various changes in the song to occur.  When the playback stopped, the master track would be played back and listened to.  The mix of the master track would have to be re-done until an acceptable master track had been agreed upon.  This could take hours, days, or even weeks!  Then the true mastering would really only begin.  The stereo master would be analyzed and further levelling, noise reduction or boosting, eq'ing, compression, and so on, would be applied.

Who knows if anything will be done to further enhance Queen's recordings.  For one thing, I doubt they will touch the mixing side.  Too complicated and not to mention that some of the original parts of the multitracks are probably missing (yes, gone forever! 'Coming Soon' - the opening vocals weren't on the multitracks when 'The Game' was remixed for surround sound) or can't be used due to some sort of damage.  I do think that remastering will happen - but I can't tell you how or when!

---------------------------

Agree... and that's my point of QP announcing a REMASTER of these albums. The main public doesn't now they get tricked and spending money for nothing. Okay maybe a nice new package. But the final mix is the final mix.

The case of the Jazz drums isn't a matter of mastering, it's a matter of recording and mixing. But mainly recording.

Remastering wouldn't help.

I hope they remix the music. The Beatles remasters from last year were horrible. On the other hand, the Genesis remixes from the last couple of years were awesome. The old 1970-1974 recordings came to life. I wish they could do that with albums which lack the 'live'  soudn in my opinion (Queen I, Innuendo)

If the original mix is bad, it can't be improved by the remastering in the main aspects. It can be saved only by proper remixing from original multitracks.

I don't think QP will ever choose to remix the whole catalog, but to remix Queen, Queen II, Jazz, Innuendo will be really helpful for these albums.

*goodco* wrote: We'll second the comments regarding 'Jazz' and 'Innuendo'.

And add a third.....how about 'Live Killers'?  And, as a bonus, include 'FBG', 'It's Late', 'IYCB'em', and 'STL'.    Moving on, we bought the EMI disks as imports when they first came out, got screwed on the HR 'remastering' and errors, and have not purchased any of the so called 'enhancements' since then.  And refuse to be gullible this time around as well......unless.......there's something worthwhile added.

Hell....I'd buy 'Flash' remastered if it had 'The Hero' trailer version, and a stand alone 'Wedding March' (and some live versions or three that are unavailable)

I totally agree about Jazz, Innuendo and Live Killers.  LK needs those dropped tracks added.

Hello, Everybody!
Tell me, please differences of release Queen "Deluxe Collection" from others remastering for example Japan remastering any years

Youngballantyne is correct on all points about mastering and mixing. I too am a musician and tbh, I master Queen's songs myself, so I no longer cringe when I hear the loss of certain sounds.
 So my solution is to 'Remaster' the songs yourselves. There are two great programmes out there, which you can get on a trial basis or indeed, buy the full versions but they are quite expensive.
 Download a programme called T-Racks 3 Or another programme called Ozone 4. Do what it says on the tin with these products and also have some fun doing so, it's got to be worth a try, also you will then see how difficult it is to 'Master' a song.

Re-mixing is a pretty sensitive issue IMHO.

You have to remember that what was issued on the ORIGINAL albiums in their VINYL state was EXACTLY how we were supposed to be allowed to hear what the band (any band for that matter)( had recorded and committed to release.

Messing with that work and what is the musician's art is tampering with history.

We may (and I'm firmly entrenched in this camp) clamour for a re-mix to improve and enhance what we have as techniques and technology have moved on so much since the heady days of the 1970s that so much more can be gleaned from master tapes compared to what could be back then.  The recent re-mixing programs undertaken for the catalogues of The Who, The Doors, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin etc all show exactly what can be achieved by carefully extracting as much as possible from the masters and re-evaluating what should be placed where sonically.

If this is to happen, it MUST be done under the auspices of Brian, Roger and John to ensure that the band's legacy is properly represented.  Or, if they are not interested in spending the time, it should be handed over to someone sensitive to the needs of the band's legacy.

Nothing else will do, but should ONLY be done where COMPLETE master tapes exist in order to preserve sound quality and continuity.

Otherwise, just re-master the BEST AVAILABLE current mixes.

If it ain't broke.....don't fix it.

very well put Benn!

I agree with almost all opinions, Queen recordings do need a treatment like the last Genesis and King Crimson remasters, the works of these bands have now an incredible sound. It seems like QP is only attending the making of more money releasing GH only. A pity.

It can be frustrating when people don't know what they're talking about.

I don't know what I'm talking about, but it's obvious there's a difference between the technical and assumed definitions of re-mastering, remixing, etc. I think what people want (or at least what I would like) is to hear different mixes that make little nuances more noticeable. That's what the Beatles Remasters really were, perhaps. I liked hearing different versions even though they may not have been exactly as intended.

I don't see any reason to buy a remastered version of A Kind Of Magic, The Miracle or others that are already great quality for the most part. But I'd love to hear fuller-sounding versions of Jazz and the older albums as well.

What did everyone think of the 30th anniversary edition of ANATO? I really liked it. Not a whole lot of differences when listening in stereo, but I know I noticed a few nice differences.

Well I think its an excellent idea. The only CD's you can get in Australia are the EMI ones from the early 90's which sound terrible. The first 3 albums sound terrible, in particular the first 2. Of course Jazz and Innuendo are dying for some work as well.