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

Wilki Amieva wrote: I've been a record collector for more of 20 years now and let me say that I have seen "special", "definitive", "expanded", "collector's", "deluxe", etc. used fairly inconsistently worldwide since the dawn of CD. These are NOT standard definitions at all - but marketing tags used to improve the perceived value of a product vs. a standard/original release. Each label has a preferred term, which can be tweaked by the project manager to suit almost any product - sometimes it just makes reference to a different sleeve. On the other hand, "de luxe" has a definite meaning: it means luxurious. So let's wait and see how much luxury they pack in.

Now if the problem is that some of you are not willing to purchase (again) 15 albums for "just" about 80 bonus tracks (most of them officially unreleased), that's OK. Just don't buy them. I am pretty sure that those tracks will be compiled again sooner or later.

________________________________________________________________________________________

The definition of "deluxe edition" as written on Universal's website is an album including a bonus disc, and by that definition these releases fill the criteria... It's just that five tracks could have been tacked on the end of each disc, and the discs could have been labeled as "special editions".

With this they (QP or Island?) have managed to
a) give a better sounding marketing term for the product
b) increase the sale price by more than 20%, and
c) give as little bonus material as they can get away with

As for the content itself... I'm taking Island's deluxe editions of Bob Marley & The Wailers albums as a benchmark.
They have singles and original remixes on the first disc, and about an hour of concert material, original remix versions, or a complete original version of the debut album on the bonus disc. That's what normal people think when they see an advertisement for a Deluxe Edition.

so you are already complaining about the bad choice of Bonus material? So it will get more funny if they really release a Hyde Park, Hammersmith and BBC DVD/CD. Then will all the special Bonus Stuff on the albums be really worthless. The Deluxe Versions are getting really deluxe then

there may be slight variations form record co to record company...but any fool knows that there's a differnce between

standard / rerelease / re-issue / special  / expanded and deluxe

and by definition deluxe would be "something that is not available elsewhere...ie in other editions....
definition: deluxe: Particularly elegant and luxurious; sumptuous.. just think for a minute about how yo'd feel if you bough a special edition car and found that half the Special edition features were on the car you just traded in for it?

there is nothing that fits ANY of those adjectives about the planned sh*t being packaged on the deluxe discs....but hey-ho if you want to buy a dc you already own - just for the benefit of an extra four/five tracks that you already probably have in better quality on your computer's external hard drive...then who am i to argue?  the saying "a fool and his money soon go separate ways" was never more apt when talking about queen's Special Editions.

I know i said it before: but if you want to really see what Special Editions should look like - have a look at the S/Es from AC/DC, Deep Purple, Springteen, Bowie, Rainbow, and even the who

Oh, and for those who wonder about the proper definition of Expanded Edition: have a look at the UFO issues of 70s albums with extras stuff on...that's expanded

I found most of the arguments either unreasonably biased or plainly delusional.

do you even know what delusional means?
and while talking about arguments.....try and present a better one than that

That's not an argument - it's an (apparently) unbased complaint. That some of you cannot tell the difference - that I knew already. But thanks anyway.

Wilki Amieva wrote: I found most of the arguments either unreasonably biased or plainly delusional.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biased for or against what?

You ARE kidding, right?

I won't be buying these. The new remaster jobs are going to be compressed to Hell. As much as what Bob Ludwig did on mastering many albums superbly, I think he's being forced to make everything bleed to death and sound LOUDER AND MUDDIER. The bonus tracks I've already heard before. The commentary, I'll just pull out In The Studio with Redbeard for it.

Being an American, I can say that the 1994 EMI/Parlophone CD remaster issues were a step up from the 1991 remasters Hollywood put out. I'm grabbing the EMI issues whilst I can (be it imported here to the US) before being phased for the compressed to Hell versions ordered by Island Records (a label which I can't stand anyway).

Island/Universal can kiss my *ss and their posterchild for skank of the century Amy Winehouse (with her Mickey Mouse tattoos), Bob Marley (who they continue to mooch off his dead *ss), U2 (a/k/a Usuck).

The only great jobs in remastering I heard in last ten or so years was what James Guthrie and Doug Sax did with Pink Floyd's Echoes compilation and The Dark Side of the Moon Hybrid SACD, The Final Cut re-release in 2004 plus the remasterings of David Gilmour's two solo album (done by Doug Sax and James Guthrie), the Piper at the Gates of Dawn 40th Anniversary Edition.

Wilki Amieva wrote: You ARE kidding, right?
Nope.

Holly2003: Against Queen products.

NOTWMEDDLE: The 1993/94 Digital Master Series was mostly remastered prior to the 1991 "20 Queen Years" series. In MANY cases, both series used the same remasters.

Wilki Amieva wrote: Holly2003: Against Queen products.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, I thought you meant against a person. Bias against a product? A strange way to say it. People are simpy weighing up if it's value for money, as they do everything else that's offered for sale. And economic times are tough right now, so I would've thought companies like Queen Prod. or Island Records would really want to offer something very attractive. I'm not a collector any more but I am willing to spend cash on Queen if the product is right. Sadly, it hasn't been right for some time now. It is frustrating, and it gets more frustrating as opportunities are missed again and again. This is their 40th anniversary after all. Do we have to wait for the 50th to get something interesting or complete?

I'll add yet another comment to this thread.... Some/most/all converse with friends via email/Facebook/twitter, etc...... Many are Queen fans (along with being fans of various sports/other bands/similar politics....)  Are any of your fellow Queen fans going to purchase the new releases?

i really don't gonna buy this s##t
too much money for the same old things....

how i miss now the hollywood records versions!!!!!!  LOL

when these versions comes out i will download it all from megaupload!!!

is what they deserves.... with s##t like this RIP the music indistry!

ziggybsas wrote: i really don't gonna buy this s##t
too much money for the same old things....

how i miss now the hollywood records versions!!!!!!  LOL

when these versions comes out i will download it all from megaupload!!!

is what they deserves.... with s##t like this RIP the music indistry!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

wrong! wrong! wrong!
this is by no means RIP the music industry....htink you'll find - as i said earlier - other bands treat their fans much better....bowie, springsteen....deep purple.....thin lizzy..the who...rainbow

queen on the other hand.....RIP QPL