Hutchence
Earls court/Houston/Bob Harris documentary would be a perfect combo for 2017. release...IMO
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Hangman_96
Hyde Park may well be released next year. Just think about it, Freddie's 70th birthday in September - and then there comes Hyde Park, just much to the delight of it.
As regards both Earls Court and Houston - honestly I don't think they will release two concerts in one year. If they do release something, it will be either the former or the latter, but I'd still prefer the former.
As regards both Earls Court and Houston - honestly I don't think they will release two concerts in one year. If they do release something, it will be either the former or the latter, but I'd still prefer the former.
cmsdrums
I'm sure we will get a few key things next year to commemorate Freddie's 70th (and to a lesser degree, 25 years since he died).
Alongside any Queen release(s) and the live dates with AL, I reckon we'll get some Freddie solo stuff - perhaps a reworking of Mr Bad Guy in some form?
Alongside any Queen release(s) and the live dates with AL, I reckon we'll get some Freddie solo stuff - perhaps a reworking of Mr Bad Guy in some form?
tomchristie22
[QUOTE] [b]fras444 wrote:[/b]
Do you think that they will give John deacons voice some auto tune or overdubs on in the lap of the gods or somebody to love. .? Or keep it original. .? [/QUOTE]
The other possibility is that they'll mute it completely, recreating the way the band intended the songs to sound on the night. I hope they'll leave John's vocals intact, but knowing their perfectionism, I doubt they will.
Do you think that they will give John deacons voice some auto tune or overdubs on in the lap of the gods or somebody to love. .? Or keep it original. .? [/QUOTE]
The other possibility is that they'll mute it completely, recreating the way the band intended the songs to sound on the night. I hope they'll leave John's vocals intact, but knowing their perfectionism, I doubt they will.
BETA215
[QUOTE]
[b]tomchristie22 wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]fras444 wrote:[/b]
Do you think that they will give John deacons voice some auto tune or overdubs on in the lap of the gods or somebody to love. .? Or keep it original. .? [/QUOTE]
The other possibility is that they'll mute it completely, recreating the way the band intended the songs to sound on the night. I hope they'll leave John's vocals intact, but knowing their perfectionism, I doubt they will.[/QUOTE]
Hope they don't do the Now I'm Here mess with other songs, as happened in the Rainbow VHS: it had the original backing vocals, because they couldn't work (it seems) with the live vocals.
[b]tomchristie22 wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]fras444 wrote:[/b]
Do you think that they will give John deacons voice some auto tune or overdubs on in the lap of the gods or somebody to love. .? Or keep it original. .? [/QUOTE]
The other possibility is that they'll mute it completely, recreating the way the band intended the songs to sound on the night. I hope they'll leave John's vocals intact, but knowing their perfectionism, I doubt they will.[/QUOTE]
Hope they don't do the Now I'm Here mess with other songs, as happened in the Rainbow VHS: it had the original backing vocals, because they couldn't work (it seems) with the live vocals.
Bad Seed
"Why would they bother to do restoration and remixing just for a couple of mins in a documentary"?
I don't think anything in this documentary (in it's current state) was not already shown at the SSIS exhibition in 2011. So nothing here (that I'm aware of) was specifically or recently done for this doc.
I don't think anything in this documentary (in it's current state) was not already shown at the SSIS exhibition in 2011. So nothing here (that I'm aware of) was specifically or recently done for this doc.
rocknrolllover
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
The minute of '39 on the From Rags To Rhapsody documentary sure is an interesting study.
Clearly it's not identical to the Earls Court version of the song heard on the 2011 remaster of ANATO, which is entirely from the second night, June 7. Plenty of things indicate this, particularly Freddie's ad lib connecting the last two choruses. On the first night he says "all together" while it's "everybody" on the second. The former is used in the documentary, but the vocals (lead and backing) otherwise seem to be identical on the two versions.
I tried playing the two versions side by side, and they don't remotely match up on first glance. Instrumentally it's all different, so at least musically speaking the two clips are definitely from the two different nights. So for the new documentary they used the backing tracks from the first night, the vocals from the second night (constantly adjusting the tempo to ensure it all matches), and switched to the first night for that one ad lib so that Freddie's vocal matches the footage.
So the question is - why? Why was all this work done for a one minute clip in a documentary? Maybe the footage of the song from the second night is unusable? In that case, couldn't they have chosen another song that wouldn't have required so much work?
My theory - the work has already been done. They've got an official release in the making, similar to the Rainbow '74 material, using a compilation of both nights.
Furthermore - a few years ago the rumour mill said Earls Court was unreleasable because the piano mic track is blank on the multi-tracks of both nights. The fact that Freddie is seen speaking at the piano before the song on the documentary all but quashes that theory. Who comes up with these things !?
Thoughts?
[/QUOTE]
It's Definitely good study, you know. If Hyde Park is impossible to release, so it would be a good idea release Earls Court as compensation.
The minute of '39 on the From Rags To Rhapsody documentary sure is an interesting study.
Clearly it's not identical to the Earls Court version of the song heard on the 2011 remaster of ANATO, which is entirely from the second night, June 7. Plenty of things indicate this, particularly Freddie's ad lib connecting the last two choruses. On the first night he says "all together" while it's "everybody" on the second. The former is used in the documentary, but the vocals (lead and backing) otherwise seem to be identical on the two versions.
I tried playing the two versions side by side, and they don't remotely match up on first glance. Instrumentally it's all different, so at least musically speaking the two clips are definitely from the two different nights. So for the new documentary they used the backing tracks from the first night, the vocals from the second night (constantly adjusting the tempo to ensure it all matches), and switched to the first night for that one ad lib so that Freddie's vocal matches the footage.
So the question is - why? Why was all this work done for a one minute clip in a documentary? Maybe the footage of the song from the second night is unusable? In that case, couldn't they have chosen another song that wouldn't have required so much work?
My theory - the work has already been done. They've got an official release in the making, similar to the Rainbow '74 material, using a compilation of both nights.
Furthermore - a few years ago the rumour mill said Earls Court was unreleasable because the piano mic track is blank on the multi-tracks of both nights. The fact that Freddie is seen speaking at the piano before the song on the documentary all but quashes that theory. Who comes up with these things !?
Thoughts?
[/QUOTE]
It's Definitely good study, you know. If Hyde Park is impossible to release, so it would be a good idea release Earls Court as compensation.
rhapsody8
Maybe (and hopefully) they already done all of working on concerts for releasing. Then filled the "releasable concerts" folder. So, they only want to wait for 40th years of each concert...
Einstein was here :-)
Einstein was here :-)
mcgroom
Regarding Earls Court I've always found this comment by Rhys Thomas back in 2012 interesting:
[b]"Earls Court exists but the sound needs a lot of work for a surround
sound mix. Picture wise it's good, but only a mixing tape -ie. no rushes
like Wembley for example."[/b]
This was on his reddit post back around the time the Great Pretender documentary came out. So it sounds like its possible that they can still make a decent mix with what they have? Or maybe the reason why it needs a lot of work is because is because Freddie's piano mic is muted? Hopefully we will find out eventually.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/yywu6/iama_rhys_thomas_freddie_mercury_documentary
[b]"Earls Court exists but the sound needs a lot of work for a surround
sound mix. Picture wise it's good, but only a mixing tape -ie. no rushes
like Wembley for example."[/b]
This was on his reddit post back around the time the Great Pretender documentary came out. So it sounds like its possible that they can still make a decent mix with what they have? Or maybe the reason why it needs a lot of work is because is because Freddie's piano mic is muted? Hopefully we will find out eventually.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/yywu6/iama_rhys_thomas_freddie_mercury_documentary
Biggus Dickus
^^ I like the original Wembley cut, but it would have been interesting to see a newly edited piece.
splicksplack
[QUOTE] [b]Bad Seed wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
Furthermore - a few years ago the rumour mill said Earls Court was unreleasable because the piano mic track is blank on the multi-tracks of both nights. The fact that Freddie is seen speaking at the piano before the song on the documentary all but quashes that theory. Who comes up with these things !?
Thoughts?
[/QUOTE]
I believe that came direct from Jim Beach when asked by a fan.
The fact that the only time we hear Freddie speak into the piano mic is still the same as the old bootleg makes me worry that the rumour is correct.
Why would they do all of the work you mentioned yet not correct a simple error like that?
I do hope you're right though![/QUOTE]
Correct. I asked Jim Beach at one of his son's gigs in London. He did NOT say "the piano mic track is blank on the multi-tracks of both nights". He said "there are problems with Freddie's (piano?) mic so we can not release Earl's Court although parts may be included in a compilation".
Those were his words a few years ago. He may have not been telling the whole truth, he may not have all the facts, but that is what he said.
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
Furthermore - a few years ago the rumour mill said Earls Court was unreleasable because the piano mic track is blank on the multi-tracks of both nights. The fact that Freddie is seen speaking at the piano before the song on the documentary all but quashes that theory. Who comes up with these things !?
Thoughts?
[/QUOTE]
I believe that came direct from Jim Beach when asked by a fan.
The fact that the only time we hear Freddie speak into the piano mic is still the same as the old bootleg makes me worry that the rumour is correct.
Why would they do all of the work you mentioned yet not correct a simple error like that?
I do hope you're right though![/QUOTE]
Correct. I asked Jim Beach at one of his son's gigs in London. He did NOT say "the piano mic track is blank on the multi-tracks of both nights". He said "there are problems with Freddie's (piano?) mic so we can not release Earl's Court although parts may be included in a compilation".
Those were his words a few years ago. He may have not been telling the whole truth, he may not have all the facts, but that is what he said.
The Real Wizard
But the fact that the same level issue is there on the piano mic should pretty well indicate that Beach was right, at least about the first night. And chances are it'd be the same case for the second night, as nobody would review the tapes after the gig.
It'd be absolutely tragic if that were the case. This would mean there is no multi-track of a complete Queen show for all of 77-78, their most interesting touring years as far as I'm concerned.
It'd be absolutely tragic if that were the case. This would mean there is no multi-track of a complete Queen show for all of 77-78, their most interesting touring years as far as I'm concerned.
Oscar J
^ Can't Hyde Park sort of be considered a ADATR concert? What's that missing compared to Earls Court that makes it less interesting? :)
cmi
^ Compare the set lists of both.
Doga
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
But the fact that the same level issue is there on the piano mic should pretty well indicate that Beach was right, at least about the first night. And chances are it'd be the same case for the second night, as nobody would review the tapes after the gig.
It'd be absolutely tragic if that were the case. This would mean there is no multi-track of a complete Queen show for all of 77-78, their most interesting touring years as far as I'm concerned.
[/QUOTE]
Are we sure both nights have the problem in the piano mic? With Rainbow, (i believe was Rhys???) who said they had to merge the two nights because one night have problems in some spots.
The could do the same with EC.
But the fact that the same level issue is there on the piano mic should pretty well indicate that Beach was right, at least about the first night. And chances are it'd be the same case for the second night, as nobody would review the tapes after the gig.
It'd be absolutely tragic if that were the case. This would mean there is no multi-track of a complete Queen show for all of 77-78, their most interesting touring years as far as I'm concerned.
[/QUOTE]
Are we sure both nights have the problem in the piano mic? With Rainbow, (i believe was Rhys???) who said they had to merge the two nights because one night have problems in some spots.
The could do the same with EC.