Press Release: QUEEN: FIRST FIVE ALBUMS RE-ISSUED ON ISLAND RECORDS

Holly2003 wrote: ...Of course, they'll probably never get around to releasing those, as Freddie didn't have a moustache back then...
---------------------------------------

They could always superimpose a CGI moustache on 74-79 Freddie and release both Hammy shows, Hyde Park and Houston... :)

Nordico wrote:

The fact that Hollywood records did release Keep Yourself Alive (Long Lost Retake) wasn't a big suprise for me, since Brian already talked about it in a interview I read long way back in 1978.

So I digged in my archive an this is what I found...since it is in Dutch I give a small translation:

The interview was taken by Kees Baars (Dutch DJ and pop journalist) for Muziekkrant Oor in between the 2 concert at the Ahoy 19/20 april 1978 and was published 14 june 1978.

Translation:
First Brian talks about Queen II, that it is the most important Queen album for him and he would like to re-recorded it....but there many reasons to do it not. Than he says "Last Year" we have re- recorded Keep Yourself Alive for the American market, but due to the fact that "We are the champions" was a big sucess, we have left it on the shelf. Maybe we will release it sometime or put it on an album because it is a pretty good take which strenght me the idea that the production of the first album wasn't good.  

I don't know how serious we need to take the words "Last Year" which means that KYA was re-recorded in 1977... but I think Brian was wrong or was misunderstood. 

An acetate bearing the long-lost retake and an edit from it is known to exist. This acetate was cut at Master Room Studios in London. The label in the acetate was used by the studio between late 1972 and early 1976 - hence implying that the acetate was cut in early 1976 at the latest.

how many naysayers and whiners have gathered on the forums. ah ah ah

Goodoldfashionedloverboy wrote: how many naysayers and whiners have gathered on the forums. ah ah ah

choo?

^ Ah haha.  That reminded me of nautily exclaiming 'Choo!' at the end of Robert Plant's 'Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah..." at a party years ago, therein totally ruining 'Whole Lotta Love' for  everybody else.

Ha!  :)

Could have been better, could have been worse.

Maybe a strange thought from my side: does the inclusion of Hammersmith 75, Hyde Park 76 and Eals Court 77 bonus tracks mean that we will see these (complete) concerts as official releases in the next 2-3 years?

Would not surpise me they added these as "teasers" for forthcoming releases.

Or perhaps this is only wishful thinking?

Each of these albums could have had 30-40 minutes of good bonus material, but.....'nooooooooooo'

Live versions from the era of each release makes sense, along with demos and b-sides, but.........why the karaoke crap, and '7 Seas' from 86 on QII? 

I understand putting YOUR product on the shelves, to replace the old company's stuff.  I really do.  But these????

Lame again.  We were actually thinking of purchasing ANATO for the 5th (or is it 6th or 7th time or 8th time), depending on a rarity or two that made sense.  We've stayed away from Queen releases over the past ten years, other than Milton Keynes CD and DVD, TCR and ROTC (sigh).  Why bother with the other tripe?

Another lost opportunity.

I'll agree with a post mentioned eailer, the main stars of the release here are the 2011 remasters. The GH1/2 sounded amazing to me, loudness war or not, it sounded amazing so I'd be the 2011 for the Albums not the special features.

Queen are often listed among the top bootleg bands of all time and Bri+Rog know that, and one thing a Queen fan would love would be the release of rare stuff, however from a casual fan point and money point of view those hidden gems wouldnt sell particully well hense the lack of content of the remasters. Think back to the The Beatles remasters, theres no speical features even thou there is so much stuff a fan want.

Isle0fRed wrote: Think back to the The Beatles remasters, theres no speical features even thou there is so much stuff a fan want.

The Beatles NEVER had any "re-masters" released (at least not their complete catalogue), the only CDs available were the (rather poor) transfers from the 80s. So to Beatles fans it WAS exiting to hear "re-masters" after some 25 years.

Isle0fRed wrote: I'll agree with a post mentioned eailer, the main stars of the release here are the 2011 remasters. The GH1/2 sounded amazing to me, loudness war or not, it sounded amazing so I'd be the 2011 for the Albums not the special features.

Queen are often listed among the top bootleg bands of all time and Bri+Rog know that, and one thing a Queen fan would love would be the release of rare stuff, however from a casual fan point and money point of view those hidden gems wouldnt sell particully well hense the lack of content of the remasters. Think back to the The Beatles remasters, theres no speical features even thou there is so much stuff a fan want.
=================================================================

Yes, let us think back to the Beatles remasters!

- first of all the Beatles already released an anthology before the remasters - the Anthology had 3 double CDs and a 600 min documentary on DVD, laserdisc or VHS plus a book. No doublettes, no pre-released material at all. You can buy the CDs and/or the DVD and/or the book  just as you please.

Queen, however, have not released any anthology at all.

- secondly the Beatles remasters were actual remasters from the *original master tapes*. It took 4 years to remaster the tapes in the Abbey Road studios. You can argue the result but they took a lot of trouble to give the public a great product.

Queen, however, release digital remixes from the stereo mixes, not the master tapes. No idea how long it took them to make the remixes.

- thirdly, the Beatles remaster stereo box contains the 12 original albums, the Magical Mystery Tour album  plus the 2 Past Masters albums containing the *non-album singles* plus a DVD containing the mini documentaries to each album. Each album has a booklet with information about the recording process.The price for the complete box is approx. 180 euro. Each album can be bought alone if you do not want to buy the box.

Queen, however, released their (mostly album) singles on 4 boxes missing actual non-album singles, no booklet , no nothing. Price for the 4 boxes approx 180 euro. You do the math yourself and tell me who is the rip-off here

Your Valentine wrote: - secondly the Beatles remasters were actual remasters from the *original master tapes*. It took 4 years to remaster the tapes in the Abbey Road studios. You can argue the result but they took a lot of trouble to give the public a great product.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Actually it did not take four years as this press interview from the time of release shows:  
1. According to a press release it has taken four years and five engineers to remix the entire body of work. Why such a work intense process?

Alan Rouse: It didn’t take 4 years to do it, it was spread over 4 years. But in… ah it probably took, well in fact it took about a whole year to do it, and there were 6 people involved, and the reason that we had more than 1 or 2 people doing it, was so that ah, no one person was responsible for making the mistakes. Uhm, we spread the mistakes now amongst all 6 of us, whereas if in fact everybody thinks it´s great then it was me.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Remastering is a process that can be done by an experienced expert with well trained ears within minutes. I know a guy who does it for a record company that has specialised on re-releases. A good remastering can add a lot of life to a recording. But there is also a point, from where things can only get worse.  Losing the original dynamics - as can be heard in some songs from the new GH remasters - is such a point.    

BTW, the fact that the new remasters didn't chart in Germany may simply have to do with the fact, that there was no advertising or promo-campaign at all. It's simply just like replacing the EMI versions with the Universal ones. So no big deal.

In 1987, when The Beatles released their albums in CD for the first time they used production masters, except for a couple of CDs that were remixed from the multitrack masters (HELP!, RUBBER SOUL) and another couple that were digitally remastered from the original master tapes (SGT. PEPPERS, LET IT BE, ABBEY ROAD). In 1998 they remastered from the original master tapes and reissued on CD the double album THE BEATLES. The 2009 CD releases are again remasters, but ALL taken from the original master tapes (including the stereo digital master U-MATICs from the 1987 remixes). There are also a couple of newer remix albums like the YELLOW SUBMARINE OST and LOVE, but that's of course another story,

The same applies to Queen, except they never "remixed" any album. The 1986 CD issues by EMI (as well as Elektras's 1983/4 and Toshiba-EMI's 1988 CDs) were remastered from the production masters. ALL the other CD releases were digitally remastered from the original master tapes (if available). There is NO REMIXING whatsoever!

I did not say anything about previous Beatles and Queen remasters. That was not my point at all. I was only referring to the suggestion that the Beatles 2009 remaster box was not any better than the Queen 40 year re-issues. I was told that these re-issues are done from the original stereo mixes and not the master tapes. If this is technically called remaster and not remix I gladly take that point, I am not a studio technician. I did not say anything about the sound quality, either - I really should listen to the tracks before having an opinion.

My point was that nothing in the 2009  Beatles remasters is designed to rip off the fan and /or the casual buyer. It is only about a decent re-issue of the original product with beautiful mini-replicas of the original album covers and interesting booklets plus mini documentary to each album. For the first four albums a true stereo mix was done for the first time. The non-album singles are included on the past masters volume 1 and 2. Each album can be bought by itself by the casual fan who only likes one or two albums. The anthology was released as an EXTRA product in 1995 and again you can always choose if you buy the CDs, DVD, book. You can argue the sound quality, package, anything but it was not a rip-off. For the more committed fan there was the mono box which is very different from the stereo box and very expensive. It is a release for the hardcore fans and nobody needs it to have a very nice and complete re-issue.

Queen, on the other side, put 5-6 tracks on bonus albums to each album - so if you want the bonus tracks you must buy the complete catalogue. For me that is a rip-off, mainly because the bonus tracks are inconsistent - you have released live tracks, unreleased studio demos, BBC tracks, Karaoke mixes etc. The fan cannot pick and choose - they have to buy the whole thing to get maybe 20 bonus tracks worth their money. I would not say a word if the BBC tracks, De Lane Lea demos  and other previously unreleased tracks were released on extra CDs and not "bonus" CDs. In this case I would go to my local CD shop and would listen into the remasters to decide if I want them. Sound quality would be my criterion having so many previous releases already. But Queen want me to buy them anyway by putting these few bonus tracks on each "deluxe" album.

It's a rip-off and that is my personal opinion.

Of course that is only your opinion. But someone could have argued quite the opposite. Some Beatles fans did raise the following points:

1) Inconsistency: The stereo box had a mixture of original and 1987 stereo mixes. Further original stereo mixes are included as bonus in the mono box. This makes NO SENSE at all.

2) Exclusivity: The mono albums could ONLY be bought in a limited (and quite expensive) box. The first four albums are barely listenable in stereo as the original stereo mixes aren't proper mixes at all, at the time they just released the 2-track multitrack masters (and that is what is just included in the stereo box - they didn't make new stereo mixes of these, as you imply above).

3) Lack of extra content: No bonus tracks, just Quicktime video documentaries with re-edited material from ALREADY AVAILABLE clips in the ANTHOLOGY video series. There was of course a bonus DVD compiling all such documentaries in proper format, but it was released exclusively as part of the stereo box.

There were also minor complaints about some "replaced" or "tweaked" versions, mistakes in the liner notes and even the quality of the remasters (excessive noise reduction and/or peak limiting in the stereo box versions).