philip storey
Well there must be something different than what is on GH otherwise what's the reason for new fans and old buggers like me buying it.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
CPL593h
"From the film": tracks with Fred's voice mixed with Martel's and Malek's?
Spare me my life from this monstrosity! Autotune was one thing, but having impersonators add missing bits to a song is a whole other level of ugliness.
Spare me my life from this monstrosity! Autotune was one thing, but having impersonators add missing bits to a song is a whole other level of ugliness.
bucsateflon
cpl9787 is very stupid
Grantcdn1
Can only hope the Jazz outtakes are more than FBG 79 live and the revisited Dont Stop Me Now from the soundtrack.....I’d love to have proper mixes from that album and or similar to NOTW
john bodega
"Autotune was one thing"
I'm still fucking angry about the Rainbow DVD to be honest. Gladly torrented anything since then, I am not putting my plonker on the table for people who autotune Freddie Mercury.
I'm still fucking angry about the Rainbow DVD to be honest. Gladly torrented anything since then, I am not putting my plonker on the table for people who autotune Freddie Mercury.
Chopin1995
[QUOTE] [b]john bodega wrote:[/b]
"Autotune was one thing"
I'm still fucking angry about the Rainbow DVD to be honest.[/QUOTE]
I couldn't agree more. There are some lines that shouldn't be crossed. When you know that every line Freddie sings will be perfect, or every chord Brian plays will be perfect it becomes somewhat predictable. It's not 'Live' in my eyes when almost all the music is altered after the fact. I still enjoy very much these Rainbow concerts, especially from March, but I'd love to hear an audience tapes from those evenings.
"Autotune was one thing"
I'm still fucking angry about the Rainbow DVD to be honest.[/QUOTE]
I couldn't agree more. There are some lines that shouldn't be crossed. When you know that every line Freddie sings will be perfect, or every chord Brian plays will be perfect it becomes somewhat predictable. It's not 'Live' in my eyes when almost all the music is altered after the fact. I still enjoy very much these Rainbow concerts, especially from March, but I'd love to hear an audience tapes from those evenings.
Rich Tea
jeeeez there are still soooo many negative arseholes here....
ok carry on...
ok carry on...
MrFunster
Whixh outtakes fron jazz has been played?
popy
The convention is next month.
tomchristie22
‘Negative arseholes’ - is anyone who doesn’t blindly worship what’s put out by QPL a negative arsehole?
The fact is, there’s a great deal wrong with the way audio production is handled on these releases. Things like drum triggers, hard compression, and pitch correction are ubiquitous in modern pop music, a genre of music I’m sure many of us here don’t care much for. That’s one thing, but it’s another entirely to callously insert those techniques into a recording from 1974, with the aim of ‘improving’ it. It’s absurd, makes for awful listening, and completely compromises the release’s validity as a historical document.
It’s just a lack of respect for the listeners, and indeed for the integrity of the original recordings.
Take the Beatles Hollywood Bowl reissue. John and Paul are both in fairly rough voice on many songs - they hit a couple of clunkers here and there, but overall the rawness is a big part of those recordings’ appeal. Can you imagine if the Beatles’ restoration people had dared put autotune on those vocals, or subbed in bad drum samples? It’s unimaginable, and that’s because their people are professional, and maintain a high standard in what they release. Nothing about the handling of QPL’s catalogue strikes me as professional (not least the fact that someone like Greg Brooks remains on the payroll, despite apparent complete lack of qualification or professional conduct).
The fact is, there’s a great deal wrong with the way audio production is handled on these releases. Things like drum triggers, hard compression, and pitch correction are ubiquitous in modern pop music, a genre of music I’m sure many of us here don’t care much for. That’s one thing, but it’s another entirely to callously insert those techniques into a recording from 1974, with the aim of ‘improving’ it. It’s absurd, makes for awful listening, and completely compromises the release’s validity as a historical document.
It’s just a lack of respect for the listeners, and indeed for the integrity of the original recordings.
Take the Beatles Hollywood Bowl reissue. John and Paul are both in fairly rough voice on many songs - they hit a couple of clunkers here and there, but overall the rawness is a big part of those recordings’ appeal. Can you imagine if the Beatles’ restoration people had dared put autotune on those vocals, or subbed in bad drum samples? It’s unimaginable, and that’s because their people are professional, and maintain a high standard in what they release. Nothing about the handling of QPL’s catalogue strikes me as professional (not least the fact that someone like Greg Brooks remains on the payroll, despite apparent complete lack of qualification or professional conduct).
Sheer Brass Neck
^^^
Arguably a fantastic post if you like critical thinking, or a horrible post if you buy everything Queen is selling. I like it :)
Arguably a fantastic post if you like critical thinking, or a horrible post if you buy everything Queen is selling. I like it :)
The Fairy King
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
‘Negative arseholes’ - is anyone who doesn’t blindly worship what’s put out by QPL a negative arsehole?
The fact is, there’s a great deal wrong with the way audio production is handled on these releases. Things like drum triggers, hard compression, and pitch correction are ubiquitous in modern pop music, a genre of music I’m sure many of us here don’t care much for. That’s one thing, but it’s another entirely to callously insert those techniques into a recording from 1974, with the aim of ‘improving’ it. It’s absurd, makes for awful listening, and completely compromises the release’s validity as a historical document.
It’s just a lack of respect for the listeners, and indeed for the integrity of the original recordings.
Take the Beatles Hollywood Bowl reissue. John and Paul are both in fairly rough voice on many songs - they hit a couple of clunkers here and there, but overall the rawness is a big part of those recordings’ appeal. Can you imagine if the Beatles’ restoration people had dared put autotune on those vocals, or subbed in bad drum samples? It’s unimaginable, and that’s because their people are professional, and maintain a high standard in what they release. Nothing about the handling of QPL’s catalogue strikes me as professional (not least the fact that someone like Greg Brooks remains on the payroll, despite apparent complete lack of qualification or professional conduct).[/QUOTE]
Spot on.
The restoration thing always seems a bit hypocritical to me from QP, as Brian (especially) doesn't let an interview go by without mentioning playing to 'no clicks' and being 'dangerous'.
‘Negative arseholes’ - is anyone who doesn’t blindly worship what’s put out by QPL a negative arsehole?
The fact is, there’s a great deal wrong with the way audio production is handled on these releases. Things like drum triggers, hard compression, and pitch correction are ubiquitous in modern pop music, a genre of music I’m sure many of us here don’t care much for. That’s one thing, but it’s another entirely to callously insert those techniques into a recording from 1974, with the aim of ‘improving’ it. It’s absurd, makes for awful listening, and completely compromises the release’s validity as a historical document.
It’s just a lack of respect for the listeners, and indeed for the integrity of the original recordings.
Take the Beatles Hollywood Bowl reissue. John and Paul are both in fairly rough voice on many songs - they hit a couple of clunkers here and there, but overall the rawness is a big part of those recordings’ appeal. Can you imagine if the Beatles’ restoration people had dared put autotune on those vocals, or subbed in bad drum samples? It’s unimaginable, and that’s because their people are professional, and maintain a high standard in what they release. Nothing about the handling of QPL’s catalogue strikes me as professional (not least the fact that someone like Greg Brooks remains on the payroll, despite apparent complete lack of qualification or professional conduct).[/QUOTE]
Spot on.
The restoration thing always seems a bit hypocritical to me from QP, as Brian (especially) doesn't let an interview go by without mentioning playing to 'no clicks' and being 'dangerous'.
Queenman!!
[QUOTE] [b]The Fairy King wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
‘Negative arseholes’ - is anyone who doesn’t blindly worship what’s put out by QPL a negative arsehole?
The fact is, there’s a great deal wrong with the way audio production is handled on these releases. Things like drum triggers, hard compression, and pitch correction are ubiquitous in modern pop music, a genre of music I’m sure many of us here don’t care much for. That’s one thing, but it’s another entirely to callously insert those techniques into a recording from 1974, with the aim of ‘improving’ it. It’s absurd, makes for awful listening, and completely compromises the release’s validity as a historical document.
It’s just a lack of respect for the listeners, and indeed for the integrity of the original recordings.
Take the Beatles Hollywood Bowl reissue. John and Paul are both in fairly rough voice on many songs - they hit a couple of clunkers here and there, but overall the rawness is a big part of those recordings’ appeal. Can you imagine if the Beatles’ restoration people had dared put autotune on those vocals, or subbed in bad drum samples? It’s unimaginable, and that’s because their people are professional, and maintain a high standard in what they release. Nothing about the handling of QPL’s catalogue strikes me as professional (not least the fact that someone like Greg Brooks remains on the payroll, despite apparent complete lack of qualification or professional conduct).[/QUOTE]
Spot on.
The restoration thing always seems a bit hypocritical to me from QP, as Brian (especially) doesn't let an interview go by without mentioning playing to 'no clicks' and being 'dangerous'.
[/QUOTE]
--------------------------
Don't forget him mentioning Adam is a gift from god and Freddie would be jealous about him singing. A few years ago Paul Rodgers was Freddie's favourite singer… bollocks
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
‘Negative arseholes’ - is anyone who doesn’t blindly worship what’s put out by QPL a negative arsehole?
The fact is, there’s a great deal wrong with the way audio production is handled on these releases. Things like drum triggers, hard compression, and pitch correction are ubiquitous in modern pop music, a genre of music I’m sure many of us here don’t care much for. That’s one thing, but it’s another entirely to callously insert those techniques into a recording from 1974, with the aim of ‘improving’ it. It’s absurd, makes for awful listening, and completely compromises the release’s validity as a historical document.
It’s just a lack of respect for the listeners, and indeed for the integrity of the original recordings.
Take the Beatles Hollywood Bowl reissue. John and Paul are both in fairly rough voice on many songs - they hit a couple of clunkers here and there, but overall the rawness is a big part of those recordings’ appeal. Can you imagine if the Beatles’ restoration people had dared put autotune on those vocals, or subbed in bad drum samples? It’s unimaginable, and that’s because their people are professional, and maintain a high standard in what they release. Nothing about the handling of QPL’s catalogue strikes me as professional (not least the fact that someone like Greg Brooks remains on the payroll, despite apparent complete lack of qualification or professional conduct).[/QUOTE]
Spot on.
The restoration thing always seems a bit hypocritical to me from QP, as Brian (especially) doesn't let an interview go by without mentioning playing to 'no clicks' and being 'dangerous'.
[/QUOTE]
--------------------------
Don't forget him mentioning Adam is a gift from god and Freddie would be jealous about him singing. A few years ago Paul Rodgers was Freddie's favourite singer… bollocks
Vocal harmony
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
‘Negative arseholes’ - is anyone who doesn’t blindly worship what’s put out by QPL a negative arsehole?
The fact is, there’s a great deal wrong with the way audio production is handled on these releases. Things like drum triggers, hard compression, and pitch correction are ubiquitous in modern pop music, a genre of music I’m sure many of us here don’t care much for. That’s one thing, but it’s another entirely to callously insert those techniques into a recording from 1974, with the aim of ‘improving’ it. It’s absurd, makes for awful listening, and completely compromises the release’s validity as a historical document.
It’s just a lack of respect for the listeners, and indeed for the integrity of the original recordings.
Take the Beatles Hollywood Bowl reissue. John and Paul are both in fairly rough voice on many songs - they hit a couple of clunkers here and there, but overall the rawness is a big part of those recordings’ appeal. Can you imagine if the Beatles’ restoration people had dared put autotune on those vocals, or subbed in bad drum samples? It’s unimaginable, and that’s because their people are professional, and maintain a high standard in what they release. Nothing about the handling of QPL’s catalogue strikes me as professional (not least the fact that someone like Greg Brooks remains on the payroll, despite apparent complete lack of qualification or professional conduct).[/QUOTE]
^^^ yes.
There seem to be a number of yes men working for the band and the management.
I'm sure Brian and Roger like the comfortable feeling of familiar faces and the security that feeling everyone's on side brings.
However it's usually when someone raises questions that progress is made, I don't think hats happened since 1979/80 has far as the Queen machine goes.
‘Negative arseholes’ - is anyone who doesn’t blindly worship what’s put out by QPL a negative arsehole?
The fact is, there’s a great deal wrong with the way audio production is handled on these releases. Things like drum triggers, hard compression, and pitch correction are ubiquitous in modern pop music, a genre of music I’m sure many of us here don’t care much for. That’s one thing, but it’s another entirely to callously insert those techniques into a recording from 1974, with the aim of ‘improving’ it. It’s absurd, makes for awful listening, and completely compromises the release’s validity as a historical document.
It’s just a lack of respect for the listeners, and indeed for the integrity of the original recordings.
Take the Beatles Hollywood Bowl reissue. John and Paul are both in fairly rough voice on many songs - they hit a couple of clunkers here and there, but overall the rawness is a big part of those recordings’ appeal. Can you imagine if the Beatles’ restoration people had dared put autotune on those vocals, or subbed in bad drum samples? It’s unimaginable, and that’s because their people are professional, and maintain a high standard in what they release. Nothing about the handling of QPL’s catalogue strikes me as professional (not least the fact that someone like Greg Brooks remains on the payroll, despite apparent complete lack of qualification or professional conduct).[/QUOTE]
^^^ yes.
There seem to be a number of yes men working for the band and the management.
I'm sure Brian and Roger like the comfortable feeling of familiar faces and the security that feeling everyone's on side brings.
However it's usually when someone raises questions that progress is made, I don't think hats happened since 1979/80 has far as the Queen machine goes.
Queenman!!
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
‘Negative arseholes’ - is anyone who doesn’t blindly worship what’s put out by QPL a negative arsehole?
The fact is, there’s a great deal wrong with the way audio production is handled on these releases. Things like drum triggers, hard compression, and pitch correction are ubiquitous in modern pop music, a genre of music I’m sure many of us here don’t care much for. That’s one thing, but it’s another entirely to callously insert those techniques into a recording from 1974, with the aim of ‘improving’ it. It’s absurd, makes for awful listening, and completely compromises the release’s validity as a historical document.
It’s just a lack of respect for the listeners, and indeed for the integrity of the original recordings.
Take the Beatles Hollywood Bowl reissue. John and Paul are both in fairly rough voice on many songs - they hit a couple of clunkers here and there, but overall the rawness is a big part of those recordings’ appeal. Can you imagine if the Beatles’ restoration people had dared put autotune on those vocals, or subbed in bad drum samples? It’s unimaginable, and that’s because their people are professional, and maintain a high standard in what they release. Nothing about the handling of QPL’s catalogue strikes me as professional (not least the fact that someone like Greg Brooks remains on the payroll, despite apparent complete lack of qualification or professional conduct).[/QUOTE]
^^^ yes.
There seem to be a number of yes men working for the band and the management.
I'm sure Brian and Roger like the comfortable feeling of familiar faces and the security that feeling everyone's on side brings.
However it's usually when someone raises questions that progress is made, I don't think hats happened since 1979/80 has far as the Queen machine goes. [/QUOTE]
----------------------------------------
For example these ridicilous DVD covers.....
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
‘Negative arseholes’ - is anyone who doesn’t blindly worship what’s put out by QPL a negative arsehole?
The fact is, there’s a great deal wrong with the way audio production is handled on these releases. Things like drum triggers, hard compression, and pitch correction are ubiquitous in modern pop music, a genre of music I’m sure many of us here don’t care much for. That’s one thing, but it’s another entirely to callously insert those techniques into a recording from 1974, with the aim of ‘improving’ it. It’s absurd, makes for awful listening, and completely compromises the release’s validity as a historical document.
It’s just a lack of respect for the listeners, and indeed for the integrity of the original recordings.
Take the Beatles Hollywood Bowl reissue. John and Paul are both in fairly rough voice on many songs - they hit a couple of clunkers here and there, but overall the rawness is a big part of those recordings’ appeal. Can you imagine if the Beatles’ restoration people had dared put autotune on those vocals, or subbed in bad drum samples? It’s unimaginable, and that’s because their people are professional, and maintain a high standard in what they release. Nothing about the handling of QPL’s catalogue strikes me as professional (not least the fact that someone like Greg Brooks remains on the payroll, despite apparent complete lack of qualification or professional conduct).[/QUOTE]
^^^ yes.
There seem to be a number of yes men working for the band and the management.
I'm sure Brian and Roger like the comfortable feeling of familiar faces and the security that feeling everyone's on side brings.
However it's usually when someone raises questions that progress is made, I don't think hats happened since 1979/80 has far as the Queen machine goes. [/QUOTE]
----------------------------------------
For example these ridicilous DVD covers.....