rhyeking wrote: It's standard practice in most instances to refer to the debut album as "Queen 1." Saying I'm going to do a review of Queen can be mistaken for doing a review of the band itself. It's like "Led Zeppelin 1" (or 2, or 3 or 4) or "Peter Gabriel 1" (or "Rain," or "Car") or The Beatles' "White Album." Since there was a "Queen II," it's logical, unofficial nomenclature.
If I'm going to write a post talking about that album, I'll probably call it a various points "Queen 1," "the debut album," and "the first album." ================================================
I have decided to remaster the title to Queen 1 and it's now called Queen I
Bo Alex · Member since
I downloaded the 2011 remaster in FLAC earlier today. IHMO, sounds great. Better than Queen II (also I heard it in FLAC). I think Jesus particularly sounds amazing.
MERQRY · Member since
Maybe if they remove the sound they lost quality (The quality is Excellent for a acetate) Or maybe (as rhyeking said) is a artistic expression
No one's mentioned the bass nor the bass qualities of the drums - have those been improved? To my ears, that was always sorely lacking from the first two albums.
ITSM · Member since
I think the bonus material on Queen (I) was a bit disappointing. We have allready heard all the songs many years ago - but of course it's good to finaly have them on an official CD. But they could fill the CD('s) with more songs than five or six. I really like the album though, and I enjoy Mad the Swine as well.
Live versions of My Fairy King and Great King Rat would have been great!
MERQRY · Member since
ITSM wrote: I think the bonus material on Queen (I) was a bit disappointing. We have allready heard all the songs many years ago - but of course it's good to finaly have them on an official CD. But they could fill the CD('s) with more songs than five or six. I really like the album though, and I enjoy Mad the Swine as well.
Live versions of My Fairy King and Great King Rat would have been great! ------------------- One live version of Great King Rat are possible in relative High Quality (31th March rainbow,Japan 75,etc) But a live version of My Fairy king is almost... is impossible cause they never performed that song live (except some references in 1984 or 1985,i don´t remember well)
ITSM · Member since
Thank you MERQRY - I'll check it out!
Farrokh The Great · Member since
GonnaUseMyPrisoners wrote: No one's mentioned the bass nor the bass qualities of the drums - have those been improved? To my ears, that was always sorely lacking from the first two albums.
======================================================================================= Hi GonnaUseMyPrisoners! some of the mid and much of the low frecuencuencies are lost by the use of 16 bits transfers, 24 bits transfers shows much more of that audio info.
Greetings
Soundfreak · Member since
As these are remasters and not remixes they could not improve the drum Sound. Especially the drum sound on Queen 1 is something, that even Taylor and May dislike. in a recent interview for german radio they said, that the real drum sound of Queen can be heard on the De Lane Lea Demos. While the Trident engeneers completely changed that sound to something very "dry", of which they thought was more "recent". So unless Queen do a proper remix, it will stay the way it is. And if one day they change it, people will debate "how could they do it.....it's no longer original......"
Farrokh The Great · Member since
Soundfreak wrote: As these are remasters and not remixes they could not improve the drum Sound. Especially the drum sound on Queen 1 is something, that even Taylor and May dislike. in a recent interview for german radio they said, that the real drum sound of Queen can be heard on the De Lane Lea Demos. While the Trident engeneers completely changed that sound to something very "dry", of which they thought was more "recent". So unless Queen do a proper remix, it will stay the way it is. And if one day they change it, people will debate "how could they do it.....it's no longer original......"
======================================================================================= Sorry if I don’t express myself correctly…. You had just reached the bottom of the issue, the reality is that most of the (high) drums master tapes are distorted (up to magic album) and this is easily noticed on the 24 bits transfers (2001 and 2004 EMI Toshiba remasters), for this reason Queen team avoids the 24 bits transfers and they prefer to go by the easy way...
Unknown
Soundfreak wrote: .... in a recent interview for german radio they said, that the real drum sound of Queen can be heard on the De Lane Lea Demos.
Reply: I'm not sure about that.
If you listen to the drums on Great King Rat (De lane Lea) the timing is way out and erratic compared to the album release. IMHO
Soundfreak · Member since
They were talking about the sound of the drums - not about timing or playing mistakes.
xiao zhu · Member since
probably totally stupid question: why is the acetate of Night Comes Down included when there is already the remastered album version (obviously the same De Lane Lea version) on the disk? or have i missed the point?
Unknown
xiao zhu wrote: probably totally stupid question: why is the acetate of Night Comes Down included when there is already the remastered album version (obviously the same De Lane Lea version) on the disk? or have i missed the point? Reply: So you can have another transfer complete with crackle. Seriously, I suppose they could have left it off but that would have wasted even more disc space. The original demo had five tracks, one of which was used in the eventual debut release. I guess you could say the same of the ITB bootleg.
