Keep Yourself Alive

A thought... As valid as it was for the band to have criticized Trident for sitting on the debut album for about 18 months, in the end that actually helped them. The one track to do anything commercially was Keep Yourself Alive, which they'd re-recorded in late 72 or early 73. Had the album come out in 72, this version of KYA is what would've been heard: On this 1972 acetate the entire album is intact - same track listing, same mix - except for KYA. But they weren't happy with it, so they redid the track at some point, first heard on the first BBC session in Feb 73. And since that's the one that ended up being played on the radio and then seen on the Old Grey Whistle Test (the album version is pretty much the same thing with a different lead vocal), in hindsight it's actually a good thing that the first version didn't come out. It was way more primitive, and the song might not have impressed anyone, and the entire history of Queen might not exist as it does. One of those 20/20 hindsight type moments. Thoughts?

^THIS

Great topic, and as with all statements (especially "the sky is blue"), everyone has a different opinion (LOL). Surely the sound quallity is obviously debatable (due to the acetate source). But... as someone who personally never really loved this song to begin with (GASP!) I honestly don't know if any version of it would have been a bigger hit. Not being snarky, and I want to like it... just being honest.

So I think there are a whole bunch of things to like about the acetate version for me. My laundry list:

To me, Freddie's vocals sound more animated/spontaneous/fresher.
I also really like the blended use of guitars, acoustic with electric.
I prefer what seems like a shortened intro (it always seemed too long to me on the LP, losing steam before the vox).
I think there's interesting detail in the guitar work which is more audible between 1:21-1:31, e.g. and I like that better than the LP.
Some of the orchestrated guitar voicing from 2:37-2:50 is more clearly heard - more like real, singable contrapuntal melodies... more satisfying & impressive both.
Production-wise, even the kind of simple echo/reverb they used gives it a more live sound (in its day it would have gone uncriticized, I'm sure). The Queen LP version always sounded too "dry" to me (and this song is what I think of when they talk about how they were told "we'll fix it in the mix" but that didn't work out, and later discovered they liked a blend of the different reverbs & ambient miking to create space in the sound for later LPs).

While this mix may be imperfect, I have to say I love the performance, the clarity, and I think it has strengths the LP version does not. I wouldn't get hyperbolic and say it blows the other away, but, by a nose, I think I might prefer the acetate version?!?! Thanks for tipping us to it, TRW - I actually didn't know about it...

I had no idea this was the case. Very interesting. I kind of like the more prominent bass in this mix. The acoustic guitar in the bridge is also an interesting addition.

I'm not sure if this would have had a significant effect on Queen's career though. Didn't the song get very little radio play anyway?

I'm not sure it's that vastly different to make huge historical changes to their early days, I think it's more of a question of if the album came out earlier what would Queen II have sounded like / what different commercial decisions would they have made.

I think this version fits better sonically with the rest of the album so that's always pleased me - who knows, the rerecording might have been made for a single release anyway. I wonder if they would've made the '75 rerecording too?

Is this the version Brian said was the best and they were never able to catch that vibe again? Or was there an earlier recorded version?

[QUOTE] [b]waunakonor wrote:[/b]

I had no idea this was the case. Very interesting. I kind of like the more prominent bass in this mix. The acoustic guitar in the bridge is also an interesting addition.

I'm not sure if this would have had a significant effect on Queen's career though. Didn't the song get very little radio play anyway?[/QUOTE]

Totally agree. Bass is well cool and the acoustic bit is nice too.

Had Queen come out a little rawer initially it may have eased the critical opposition to them. Was there not a perception that they were almost too polished ,and a little bit old, for a new band.

Who knows, maybe the chorus coming in 3 seconds earlier than the later version might have made the BBC selection panel playlist it.

I'm joking, of course.

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]

Is this the version Brian said was the best and they were never able to catch that vibe again? Or was there an earlier recorded version?[/QUOTE]

Pretty sure the one with the magical vibe was the original De Lane Lea demo. They weren't happy with this version.

Acetate Version so much better! thankyou

[QUOTE] [b]GonnaUseMyPrisoners wrote:[/b]


To me, Freddie's vocals sound more animated/spontaneous/fresher.
I also really like the blended use of guitars, acoustic with electric.
I prefer what seems like a shortened intro (it always seemed too long to me on the LP, losing steam before the vox).
I think there's interesting detail in the guitar work which is more audible between 1:21-1:31, e.g. and I like that better than the LP.
Some of the orchestrated guitar voicing from 2:37-2:50 is more clearly heard - more like real, singable contrapuntal melodies... more satisfying & impressive both.
Production-wise, even the kind of simple echo/reverb they used gives it a more live sound (in its day it would have gone uncriticized, I'm sure)

(...)

While this mix may be imperfect, I have to say I love the performance, the clarity, and I think it has strengths the LP version does not. I wouldn't get hyperbolic and say it blows the other away, but, by a nose, I think I might prefer the acetate version?!?! [/QUOTE]

Can't express my thoughts better than this!

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
It was way more primitive, and the song might not have impressed anyone, and the entire history of Queen might not exist as it does.

One of those 20/20 hindsight type moments.

Thoughts?
[/QUOTE]

But it didn't really impress anyone did it - it failed to chart. For the few that did like it - I somehow doubt a different recording would have made a difference.

Nice thread, folks. I'll chime in again..

There's a tendency to prefer the new one because we've heard the old one thousands of times. Newer is always shinier, so we have fresh ears for it, and we're excited to hear things simply because they're different. I've seen hardcore fans of bands enjoy the worst shite of studio outtakes purely because it's not the overplayed big hit song yet again. It's kind of hard to remain objective, never mind when it's pure gold like this.

We can only wonder which version people would've liked more in 1973 if given the choice, but there were only a very few people who were actually given that choice - and they chose to redo it. They thought the rest of the album was fine, despite being 18 months old, but this one song just wasn't good enough to them.

I do like the acoustic guitar in the mix, so it kind of serves as a bridge between the De Lane Lea version and the final studio version. And it's nice to hear the guitar solo at this stage, but it's just a phase in Brian's development as an arranger. He's a bit more sparse, and his tone isn't nearly as thick, which helps in hearing the clarity of each guitar. But there's a reason why he's known for things like Killer Queen and All Dead All Dead - because if it was 3 guitars or 13, it was cohesive. He had found his voice. He wasn't quite there in 1972.

Mercury's vocal is also underdeveloped compared to the debut album version. He was growing as a singer by the day. Compare the album version to the 1975 retake - he's in another league by then ! But it still is nice to hear him at this stage. It's an incremental step in his growth. There's almost a charm in the innocence. But he probably sounds more "spontaneous" because he was only given a few takes - let's not forget the circumstances in which the album was recorded. They didn't have huge blocks of studio time. They just got in whenever they got called.

I ultimately find that the imperfections of the acetate version trump out the few new and refreshing bits. The worst bit is the sloppy edit before the drum solo at 2:11. I can totally picture a young Brian wanting to completely redo the song if only for that.

It's true, Keep Yourself Alive was a flop and didn't get much radio airplay. But what we *can* say is that it was the first song on their first album, and this was the first exposure to Queen for countless people. The radio was irrelevant to most album buyers in the early to mid 70s, so it was kind of silly for me to even mention it. Albums became popular because of word of mouth. They amounted to about 80% of music sales in 1973.

With that in mind - there is no formula or algorithm for success, so who's to say how much differently people would've reacted to the band with a much less polished version of the first thing they heard?

Indeed, Queen were eventually destroyed in the press for being too polished, but that wasn't until 1976 or so. I don't think there are any reviews of the first album accusing it of being over-produced.

I certainly will compromise and say that the acetate version fits with the overall vibe of the album. After all, we now know the version of KYA we've heard for over 40 years was recorded long after the rest of the album. Hearing this earlier version of the song in this stage of their development (and with all the extra reverb) makes sense in the context of the rest of it, so I'll definitely give it that. It's a nice snapshot of where they were.

I hear ya. I listened to it and pictured myself listening to the debut album for the first time back in the mid 80s in my lounge with huge headphones on. In that context it took me right back - hence my comment that it fitted better with the rest of the album. Is this the same version as that really distorted share a couple of years back?

[QUOTE] [b]dysan wrote:[/b]

I hear ya. I listened to it and pictured myself listening to the debut album for the first time back in the mid 80s in my lounge with huge headphones on. In that context it took me right back - hence my comment that it fitted better with the rest of the album. Is this the same version as that really distorted share a couple of years back?[/QUOTE]

Yup, that's the one.