[QUOTE] [b]kevin79 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
Something else that crossed my mind tonight....
Why the hell didn't they reissue Greatest Hits on vinyl? Not doing so is a weird choice. [/QUOTE]
There's a million copies of the original vinyl in the UK alone.
Anybody wanting to buy a better copy for themselves can get the original album for £5, so what would be the market for a £20 reprint?[/QUOTE]
Improved sound quality. 180g vinyl. Maybe it would have been colored vinyl. A numbered limited edition. There's a number of ways they could have marketed it that would have most likely gotten people to buy it or re-buy it.
[/QUOTE]
You're probably right... And it's not like these songs are available anywhere else.
There must be hundreds of people (mostly on QZ and QOL) who would rush out to buy the 435th version of the Greatest Hits album for any of those reasons, no matter what it cost.
Maybe if were really lucky, next year there will be a series 35 different versions of the album to commemorate the 35th anniversary!
[QUOTE]
[b]tero! 48531 wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]kevin79 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
Something else that crossed my mind tonight....
Why the hell didn't they reissue Greatest Hits on vinyl? Not doing so is a weird choice. [/QUOTE]
There's a million copies of the original vinyl in the UK alone.
Anybody wanting to buy a better copy for themselves can get the original album for £5, so what would be the market for a £20 reprint?[/QUOTE]
Improved sound quality. 180g vinyl. Maybe it would have been colored vinyl. A numbered limited edition. There's a number of ways they could have marketed it that would have most likely gotten people to buy it or re-buy it. [/QUOTE]
You're probably right... And it's not like these songs are available anywhere else.
There must be hundreds of people (mostly on QZ and QOL) who would rush out to buy the 435th version of the Greatest Hits album for any of those reasons, no matter what it cost.
Maybe if were really lucky, next year there will be a series 35 different versions of the album to commemorate the 35th anniversary![/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, because, it was just hundreds of people (mostly the people on QZ and QOL) that bought Greatest Hits in the first place, just like it was just hundreds of people (mostly on QZ and QOL) that bought the 2011 remaster too. Excellent logic.
You won't find it anywhere on vinyl on QOL either. Nor can I find a new/sealed copy of it on Ebay.
Here's Amazon though. You'll find a nice new copy of Queen's Greatest Hits on vinyl for £95.
[url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=queen+greatest+hits+vinyl]http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=queen+greatest+hits+vinyl[/url]
But maybe that's a little too much.
I suppose for those who want to listen to it on vinyl, and want to listen to a clean copy, they could always put on A Night At The Opera to play Bohemian Rhapsody, followed by putting on The Game to play Another One Bites The Dust, then Sheer Heart Attack for Killer Queen, and so on and so forth...
Actually... that brings me back to my first question. Take into consideration also, that it's the UK's top selling album.
[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
Oh yeah, because, it was just hundreds of people (mostly the people on QZ and QOL) that bought Greatest Hits in the first place, just like it was just hundreds of people (mostly on QZ and QOL) that bought the 2011 remaster too. Excellent logic.
- -
Actually... that brings me back to my first question. Take into consideration also, that it's the UK's top selling album.[/QUOTE]
So... it's the highest selling UK album, with a million vinyl copies sold, with literally thousands of near mint copies in all the second hand stores of the UK.
Where's the market for a re-issue, except in the few hundred fanatics who will buy anything?
Do you think the average Joe is desperately waiting for a re-issue, because he isn't satisfied with the hundreds of second hand copies?
[QUOTE]
[b]tero! 48531 wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]
Oh yeah, because, it was just hundreds of people (mostly the people on QZ and QOL) that bought Greatest Hits in the first place, just like it was just hundreds of people (mostly on QZ and QOL) that bought the 2011 remaster too. Excellent logic.
- -
Actually... that brings me back to my first question. Take into consideration also, that it's the UK's top selling album.[/QUOTE]
So... it's the highest selling UK album, with a million vinyl copies sold, with literally thousands of near mint copies in all the second hand stores of the UK.
Where's the market for a re-issue, except in the few hundred fanatics who will buy anything?
Do you think the average Joe is desperately waiting for a re-issue, because he isn't satisfied with the hundreds of second hand copies?[/QUOTE]
Where did you get the figures from that it's a million vinyl copies sold?
Also, remember 6 million sales is for the UK only. Worldwide it's 25 million.
Of course, cd sales trump vinyl sales, but by the same argument you're putting forward, where would be market be for the reissue of the 2011 greatest hits album when you can pick it up for a couple of quid second hand, or if you want to argue over cd sales being more, where would the market be for the upcoming vinyl reissues? The market for a re-issue would generally be the same market for all those other albums by other artists that have been reissued on vinyl, obviously.
Personally, I'd much rather pick up a nice clean new copy for 20 quid or so -[b] [/b][i]if[/i][b] [/b]the reissue sounds good - rather than a second hand copy (or £95 online on Amazon for a new copy), or rather than having to hunt out around second hand shops (and it's not an album that's in my local shops).
A reissue would make sense. Especially when you consider they're reissuing their other albums. I don't see why you seem to have an issue with that.
If they re-released Greatest Hits on Vinyl now, I'm pretty sure they'd have to go for a double album reissue.
If they are selling this on quality, I don't see how they can justify 30 minutes a side.
At the very least, the volume would be much lower than the equivalent album tracks.
To be fair, the mastering on the original is quite amazing given its length, but it pushed the boundaries then and no one is releasing 25 minute plus album sides any more.
I was browsing in HMV at the weekend and noticed that U2's Joshua Tree is now a double vinyl album, and that is only 50 minutes in total. Side 2 clocks in at a massive 8 minutes 40 seconds.
[QUOTE] [b]ggo1 wrote:[/b] If they re-released Greatest Hits on Vinyl now, I'm pretty sure they'd have to go for a double album reissue.
If they are selling this on quality, I don't see how they can justify 30 minutes a side.
At the very least, the volume would be much lower than the equivalent album tracks.
To be fair, the mastering on the original is quite amazing given its length, but it pushed the boundaries then and no one is releasing 25 minute plus album sides any more.
I was browsing in HMV at the weekend and noticed that U2's Joshua Tree is now a double vinyl album, and that is only 50 minutes in total. Side 2 clocks in at a massive 8 minutes 40 seconds. [/QUOTE]
I should imagine the Joshua Tree on 45rpm sounds pretty good, I'd say from memory that the original sounded better than U2s other releases. Pop and No Line On the Horizon were fairly muddy.
A 45rpm of Queen's Greatest Hits, if done right, would be nice. Apparently Dire Straits Brothers In Arms and Fleetwood Macs Rumours sound amazing on 45rpm.
Does anyone remember how great the 12 inch version of Scandal sounded? In terms of sound quality, that trumped every other Queen recording that I'd ever heard. The 33rpm vinyl or the compressed cd reissues couldn't touch that.
