philip storey
So far i have bought all the new remasters except Flash Gordon, played the bonus Discs once all very dull and dissapointing really.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
The Real Wizard
philip storey wrote:
So far i have bought all the new remasters except Flash Gordon, played the bonus Discs once all very dull and dissapointing really.
====================
What exactly are you hoping for?
For about 15 years, Queen fans have been begging to hear some new music, and here it is ... and people are still complaining. What kind of Queen fan are you if you aren't interested in studio outtakes and unreleased songs from the 77-80 period?
So far i have bought all the new remasters except Flash Gordon, played the bonus Discs once all very dull and dissapointing really.
====================
What exactly are you hoping for?
For about 15 years, Queen fans have been begging to hear some new music, and here it is ... and people are still complaining. What kind of Queen fan are you if you aren't interested in studio outtakes and unreleased songs from the 77-80 period?
dowens
I agree Sir GH. People are pretty ridiculous when it comes to the remasters. I have LOVED 2011 as a Queen fan. I am in the US and have ordered all of the remasters (except Flash Gordon) and it's like getting all of the albums again brand new. The only real Queen album release I experienced was "Made in Heaven," so this has been awesome!
Sure, I think the Live stuff from Wembley, Montreal, and at the Bowl shouldn't have been placed on these EP's (even though the live version of "Save Me" from Montreal is incredible!), I appreciate the stuff included on the Bonus EP's. I bet the last batch will have the best remasters.
Anyone who thinks these remasters are crap and say keep the HR versions are...not smart. IMO. It's night and day different.
Sure, I think the Live stuff from Wembley, Montreal, and at the Bowl shouldn't have been placed on these EP's (even though the live version of "Save Me" from Montreal is incredible!), I appreciate the stuff included on the Bonus EP's. I bet the last batch will have the best remasters.
Anyone who thinks these remasters are crap and say keep the HR versions are...not smart. IMO. It's night and day different.
tcc
I think the Flash Gordon bonus disc is the most entertaining so far. I really enjoyed hearing the piano playing in the Football Fight (without synths). The Kiss (early take) and The Hero (Oct 1980 revisited) are also great. For me the Flash Gordon bonus tracks are the most played as compared to the other bonus discs.
mike hunt
Sir GH wrote: philip storey wrote:
So far i have bought all the new remasters except Flash Gordon, played the bonus Discs once all very dull and dissapointing really.
====================
What exactly are you hoping for?
For about 15 years, Queen fans have been begging to hear some new music, and here it is ... and people are still complaining. What kind of Queen fan are you if you aren't interested in studio outtakes and unreleased songs from the 77-80 period?
The bonus material isn't that bad....Dreamer's ball is nice, but not worth buying all the albums again to hear those few gems. Thank god for Youtube.
So far i have bought all the new remasters except Flash Gordon, played the bonus Discs once all very dull and dissapointing really.
====================
What exactly are you hoping for?
For about 15 years, Queen fans have been begging to hear some new music, and here it is ... and people are still complaining. What kind of Queen fan are you if you aren't interested in studio outtakes and unreleased songs from the 77-80 period?
The bonus material isn't that bad....Dreamer's ball is nice, but not worth buying all the albums again to hear those few gems. Thank god for Youtube.
philip storey
I am a massive Queen fan thank you very much,like most of you i have spent a hell of a lot over the years on Vinyl,Casettes,Cds,Concerts etc.I would have just hoped for something a little more juicy than Love Of My Life from Live Killers,Fat Bottomed Girls [Single Mix] and so on.If you are happy with whats on offer thats great,i will still buy the next bunch of Remasters anyway.Cheers!
TyphoonTip
The word 'remaster' has been tainted over the last 20 years. No doubt people have felt burned in the past, when they've bought something that's sold on the premise that it sounds 'better than ever before', only to find that it's had the bejesus compressed out of it, and basically sounds like shit.
....And so people torrent. And with Queen's sordid history of remasters, rightly so! If you like it, buy it, if it sounds like shit, at least you didn't waste your cash.
....And so people torrent. And with Queen's sordid history of remasters, rightly so! If you like it, buy it, if it sounds like shit, at least you didn't waste your cash.
lifetimefanofqueen
i have to agree it dose feel like a bit of a rip off,
especialy as it was £12 in HMV for one remaster.
and aye, there isnt really much difference between the remasters and the old ones, it is a bit of a piss take
especialy as it was £12 in HMV for one remaster.
and aye, there isnt really much difference between the remasters and the old ones, it is a bit of a piss take
brENsKi
lifetimefanofqueen wrote: i have to agree it dose feel like a bit of a rip off,
especialy as it was £12 in HMV for one remaster.
and aye, there isnt really much difference between the remasters and the old ones, it is a bit of a piss take
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
but it's not a rip off. a rip-off is where something is sold as soemthing it isn't....you can look at the cd case, and read the track listings BEFORE you buy...so you make a decision already aware of what you are getting for your £12...therefore...it's NOT a rip-off
especialy as it was £12 in HMV for one remaster.
and aye, there isnt really much difference between the remasters and the old ones, it is a bit of a piss take
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
but it's not a rip off. a rip-off is where something is sold as soemthing it isn't....you can look at the cd case, and read the track listings BEFORE you buy...so you make a decision already aware of what you are getting for your £12...therefore...it's NOT a rip-off
TyphoonTip
brENsKi wrote: lifetimefanofqueen wrote: i have to agree it dose feel like a bit of a rip off,
especialy as it was £12 in HMV for one remaster.
and aye, there isnt really much difference between the remasters and the old ones, it is a bit of a piss take
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
but it's not a rip off. a rip-off is where something is sold as soemthing it isn't....you can look at the cd case, and read the track listings BEFORE you buy...so you make a decision already aware of what you are getting for your £12...therefore...it's NOT a rip-off
________________________________
Unfortunately the CD case doesn't have a sticker saying 'Compressed and Hard Limited'. You have to buy it to find out it sounds like shit.
especialy as it was £12 in HMV for one remaster.
and aye, there isnt really much difference between the remasters and the old ones, it is a bit of a piss take
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
but it's not a rip off. a rip-off is where something is sold as soemthing it isn't....you can look at the cd case, and read the track listings BEFORE you buy...so you make a decision already aware of what you are getting for your £12...therefore...it's NOT a rip-off
________________________________
Unfortunately the CD case doesn't have a sticker saying 'Compressed and Hard Limited'. You have to buy it to find out it sounds like shit.
rhyeking
They sound fine to me.
You could accuse those of us who don't hear what you hear of being cloth-eared, but I think the more of an expert one becomes on a subject, the more rigid (consciously or unconsciously) their standards becomes. I work in theatre and I freely admit I'm the worst person to go see a play with, because even as I'm watching the play, I'm thinking about the staging, the lighting, the sound, spotting bad shutter-cuts on the set and looking around wondering which type of lighting instruments they're using. Once you know how it is created, you can't unsee (or unhear) the flaws. Lack of experience allows for the mind to filter those things out a lot of the time.
You could accuse those of us who don't hear what you hear of being cloth-eared, but I think the more of an expert one becomes on a subject, the more rigid (consciously or unconsciously) their standards becomes. I work in theatre and I freely admit I'm the worst person to go see a play with, because even as I'm watching the play, I'm thinking about the staging, the lighting, the sound, spotting bad shutter-cuts on the set and looking around wondering which type of lighting instruments they're using. Once you know how it is created, you can't unsee (or unhear) the flaws. Lack of experience allows for the mind to filter those things out a lot of the time.
TyphoonTip
rhyeking wrote: They sound fine to me.
You could accuse those of us who don't hear what you hear of being cloth-eared, but I think the more of an expert one becomes on a subject, the more rigid (consciously or unconsciously) their standards becomes. I work in theatre and I freely admit I'm the worst person to go see a play with, because even as I'm watching the play, I'm thinking about the staging, the lighting, the sound, spotting bad shutter-cuts on the set and looking around wondering which type of lighting instruments they're using. Once you know how it is created, you can't unsee (or unhear) the flaws. Lack of experience allows for the mind to filter those things out a lot of the time.
______________________________
I don't necessarily disagree with what you've said. But I'm just mounting the case that one could justifiably feel ripped off if they bought the CDs expecting them to sound better than ever (that's how they've been marketed), when there's a noticeable loss of dynamics (to those who place importance in those things).
Now you could argue that, to the average listener, they sound fine, and I don't have an issue with that. However to send out blanket messages saying they have never sounded better, I think is a little disingenuous. Particularly in an environment where the 'Loud Wars', have gotten a lot of press over the last few years.
Hell, Ludwig himself has repeatedly said how he thinks albums should be mastered (without comp and heavy limiting), but will often get over-ridden by those employing him. So it's therefore not unreasonable to think that even the guy who mastered these CDs may not think they're that good.
Having said that, I don't think they're completely terrible. In fact I quite like QII and Flash. But aside from those 2 (so far), there are much better versions floating around out there. And I suspect, along with Ludwig, they know it.
You could accuse those of us who don't hear what you hear of being cloth-eared, but I think the more of an expert one becomes on a subject, the more rigid (consciously or unconsciously) their standards becomes. I work in theatre and I freely admit I'm the worst person to go see a play with, because even as I'm watching the play, I'm thinking about the staging, the lighting, the sound, spotting bad shutter-cuts on the set and looking around wondering which type of lighting instruments they're using. Once you know how it is created, you can't unsee (or unhear) the flaws. Lack of experience allows for the mind to filter those things out a lot of the time.
______________________________
I don't necessarily disagree with what you've said. But I'm just mounting the case that one could justifiably feel ripped off if they bought the CDs expecting them to sound better than ever (that's how they've been marketed), when there's a noticeable loss of dynamics (to those who place importance in those things).
Now you could argue that, to the average listener, they sound fine, and I don't have an issue with that. However to send out blanket messages saying they have never sounded better, I think is a little disingenuous. Particularly in an environment where the 'Loud Wars', have gotten a lot of press over the last few years.
Hell, Ludwig himself has repeatedly said how he thinks albums should be mastered (without comp and heavy limiting), but will often get over-ridden by those employing him. So it's therefore not unreasonable to think that even the guy who mastered these CDs may not think they're that good.
Having said that, I don't think they're completely terrible. In fact I quite like QII and Flash. But aside from those 2 (so far), there are much better versions floating around out there. And I suspect, along with Ludwig, they know it.