A question regarding 'Mad The Swine'

Hello all, just a brief question.

It's rumoured that Mad The Swine is supposed to open with "I've been here before...", but on the 2011 remaster, and the 1991 Hollywood remaster it just starts with "been here before". It sounds like a bit has been cut off, but I can't be too sure...

Is this 'rumour' just a rumour, or is there a version of the track out there with this opening? If so, would anyone be so kind as to share it - even just the first 5 seconds would do...

I'd like to get to the bottom of this once and for all!

Many thanks in advance, and best wishes for the new year.

Damn, you really got nothing to do in your life, when you’re worrying if the words “I’ve” have been included or not in an obscure Queen song from almost 50 years ago.

I shall give you a good example of an activity that gives way more satisfaction: I’m going to take a good shit now.

You're absolutely right. The 'I've' was cut

It was originally the plan to have Mad The Swine on the album, right after Great King Rat as a segue. The latter song ends with a drumsolo and the last hit of the drum fell together with the word 'I've' as an anacrusis to Mad The Swine.
At one point after the master stereo mixes were made the song was cut from the album but the drumsolo still had the 'Ive' at the end. So they had to fade out the drumsolo at the end of GKR as well as fade in and cut the beginning of MTS to remove the drum hit and as collateral damage, the 'I've'.

I guess for the 1991 release they used the original stereo master, in stead of going back to the multitrack (if it still existed)

You're absolutely right. The 'I've' was cut

It was originally the plan to have Mad The Swine on the album, right after Great King Rat as a segue. The latter song ends with a drumsolo and the last hit of the drum fell together with the word 'I've' as an anacrusis to Mad The Swine.
At one point after the master stereo mixes were made the song was cut from the album but the drumsolo still had the 'Ive' at the end. So they had to fade out the drumsolo at the end of GKR as well as fade in and cut the beginning of MTS to remove the drum hit and as collateral damage, the 'I've'.

I guess for the 1991 release they used the original stereo master, in stead of going back to the multitrack (if it still existed)

To add to that, there's a version around with that added "I've", but it's fake.

Except no one has heard the supposed version seagued with Great King Rat. For something that is actually so uninteresting, why has it never been bootlegged? And FriedChicken, you write like you know this stuff as fact - but you're just repeateding the story told by the person who claims to have it.

The released version has the acoustic guitar line come in slightly before the vocal and yet there's no vocal line going over that bit of guitar, making it unlikely they "had" to remove anything. So they either did remix it, merely mixed out that the first line as it was so quiet and they didn't clock it or the whole story has been made up.

Also, if there's any truth to the story they must have therefore recorded the 2 songs as a piece (which seems odd, that there are no other segues on the album and what a strange choice to have drums go over a quiet acoustic intro) as a sequenced album master from that time period would have been the individual song stereo masters literally taped together into a huge reel - which they would obviously have been able to seperate unless they only had a higher generation/non-master tape. So they'd have had to have lost the multitracks, the multiple mixdown tapes and the original album master to have to resort to trimming the intro. Whatever.

The story makes sense to me - if they cut it at the last minute fading out GKR using the final sequenced master is a realistic solution, especially for a band with no profile and weight to demand the production is held up. My only doubt is that the drums fading on GKR works so well it's difficult to believe that wasn't a planned feature.

The lengths of both sides of the record is extremely lopsided suggesting a track has been cut from side 1 (side 2 is 4 minutes longer - with 2 more tracks than side 1 even considering the last minute addition of SSOR..)

Adding MTS at that point on the album is odd too just before MFK.

The missing 'I've' is good evidence though. Timing-wise, the acoustic seems to start naturally on the 'been', but could still mean 'I've' overlapped the last signal from GKR. Or indeed, whatever song it was trimmed from.

Then there's the 1991 version. If they fixed the issue with it, weird they didn't locate the master if they still had it unless they just overdubbed the stereo master (which makes sense with the phasing done on the whole mix rather than individual parts). Strange too that the stereo channels were reversed on the 2011 issue. Perhaps more down to Hollywood Records bodging.

The outro of the song seems to be a natural ending rather than faded or tidied for release. I CAN imagine it working nicely blending into the start of MFK.

Either way, it's a terrible song IMO - raised up to almost legendary status by it's deletion from the record. Had it been on the album I'm sure it would feature regularly in Worst Queen Songs polls.

Would be great to have some clarity on all this.

1st post! It's been discussed elsewhere how MTS sounds so 'pristine' for a song recorded in 1972, especially when compared to the songs on Queen's 1st album. As has also been discussed, this is more than likely due to the song having been (re)mixed in the early 90's for inclusion on the Hollywood Records reissue of Queen's debut album.

Ted

^^ Oops I meant to also post that I'd like to hear MTS in it's original form, prior to the early 90's (re)mixing of the song.

Ted

Welcome.

That's what I mean - if it was truly 'remixed' then it wouldn't be missing the first 'I've'. If indeed it had it in the first place.

I don't believe in this myth.
Song was remixed by David Richards in 1991 from original multitracks.

Didn't the original 1991 b-side version fade in?

No

The Hollywood version then? I guess if the fade version is the first one you hear, you get suspicious :)

Which begs the question, if the outro was left 'raw', weird they cropped a count in which would've solved the issue.

Then I guess if there wasn't a count in, it makes sense it sounds like Freddie sounds unnatural coming in like he did.

I do like these theoretical audio archaeology threads.