[QUOTE] [b]DragonflyTrumpeter83 wrote:[/b]
Also, I think if it were up to Brian and Roger, they probably wouldn't have released Let Me in Your Heart Again, Love Kills, or There Must Be More To Life Than This. Because they probably feel that they are sub-par songs that shouldn't be released. But that is just my opinion.[/QUOTE]
They sounded pretty enthusiastic about them on the Chris Evans show - Brian was particularly affectionate for Love Kills, which they'd worked on for a long time to get it sounding right as a ballad, and they both agreed that Let Me In had been an unfinished track, but they were satisfied that they had 'finished' it by assembling certain takes. If they really didn't want them released, they wouldn't let them be released. [/QUOTE]
You could be right, Tom.
Still, it could be that they have to promote it because they're under contract with the record company. Record companies are fickle. I only share my opinion. I could totally be wrong.
...and totally full of shit. ;)
tero! 48531 · Member since
Judging by the releases so far, Universal is giving the band minimum requirements for the releases, and Queen has the artistic right to fullfill those requirements.
In 2011 Universal obviously asked for "2cd deluxed editions with at least five non-album tracks (demos, remixes, b-sides") on the second disc."
This time they called out for "a compilation album with at least three previously unreleased Queen tracks, and a deluxe version with further previously unreleased versions of the old songs."
Frankly, I'm surprised by the Rainbow release, but I suppose Universal asked for a 70's concert release, and QP didn't want to pay anything to BBC for a Hammersmith 1975 release...
JeroenG · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]
Frankly, I'm surprised by the Rainbow release, but I suppose Universal asked for a 70's concert release, and QP didn't want to pay anything to BBC for a Hammersmith 1975 release...[/QUOTE]
The Rainbow release was released by Virgin EMI Records, not by Island, right......?
tero! 48531 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]JeroenG wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]
Frankly, I'm surprised by the Rainbow release, but I suppose Universal asked for a 70's concert release, and QP didn't want to pay anything to BBC for a Hammersmith 1975 release...[/QUOTE]
The Rainbow release was released by Virgin EMI Records, not by Island, right......?[/QUOTE]
Which are both owned by Universal, right?
EDWOOD · Member since
They are owned by them now I believe.
Remember as well that Queen Forever was due to be released in 2011 (due to that early press release/info from their record company). Now whether QF back then would have been the same as it is now 3 years later is anyone's guess. I'm assuming it was either delayed as Universal felt that the reissuing of all the studio albums in one year was enough and no more product was needed that year to 'flood the market with'. Also the Deep Cuts albums were put out to try and highlight studio cuts that were not well-known and that releasing QF on top of this would have been overkill.
Also in 2011 they may have viewed releasing a MJ track as too soon after his death? Or the legal rights were nowhere near sorted out ( they sound like they are only 25% sorted out now hence the mysterious non-appearance of those other 2-3 MJ tracks Brian talked about).
I suppose this is the first big new release that Universal have seen from Queen since the contract started. They'll be wanting it to be a big hit no doubt but I'm still dubious as to HOW big it will be. Will it appeal to enough non-casual fans? Will the new tracks make enough of an impact? Will Joe public give a shit?
ITSM · Member since
Even the hardcore fans are having doubts about buying Queen Forever. They got our hopes up for many new songS, and we only get one.
