abobrikov/Mr Scully: "...acetates are "works of reference" recorded on disc, of a night's session in the studio... ".
So does it mean that it's sort of live jam session, that they put on the tape to keep the ideas (sort of pre-takes)?
Yes. They can be. Nowadays, it would be so easy to download such stuff onto mini-disc or iPod, but back in 1971/72, one of the easiest methods was to make a quick disc of the evenings work onto a "reference acetate", a thin metal disc covered in a thin coating of shellac plastic. They look like "real" 7"/10"/12" singles (or even LP's) but slightly thicker. Infact they are very fragile - and can be played only a few times.
Remember also, bands like the "Beatles" essentially played "live" in the studio. So their first album was recorded in 5 - 6 hours! Similarly; As far as I know, the "Queen" De Lane Lea - Louie Austin version of "The Night Comes Down" was essentially a "live" track - but - recorded in the studio.
"Hangman" is the same as "The Night Comes Down",
similar to the live version, very simple, very basic, but complete. It is a demo without any overdubs. Like "Mad The Swine" it would make a good "B" side.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
OK thank you for your answer JSS.
I can understand that you get irritated by us asking these questions, but for us it is very important to know that hangman actually does exist.
And I also hope that this topic isn't going to turn out in a JSS FAQ, but I hope this will become a topic where people can share their knowledge.
But because of the fact that you have so much knowledge JSS, I'll doubt if other people on this board will have much to add.
I can understand that you get irritated by us asking these questions, but for us it is very important to know that hangman actually does exist.
And I also hope that this topic isn't going to turn out in a JSS FAQ, but I hope this will become a topic where people can share their knowledge.
But because of the fact that you have so much knowledge JSS, I'll doubt if other people on this board will have much to add.
EddieVanHalen: "I can understand that you get irritated by us asking these questions"
No, I am not irritated at all. I feel that now is the time for the truth to come out. I do not agree with the "mushroom" policy that comes from QP (keep the fans in the dark and feed them bull....). This is NOT the Freemasons, or matters of "National Security". I have NOT signed an official secrets act, and as Freddie said, "It's just a bloody record". So why all the strongarm tactics? Afterall, what is the seriousness of our sin - a few dedicated fans chatting on a website - and that upsets "them"?
I am very happy to answer questions, but let me make it clear. I have NO chip on my shoulder, and I am not bitter in anyway. (Life is too short). But I am fed-up to the back teeth with all (my own) pussy-footing around to avoid upsetting blank, nameless, insensitive faces.
"...I hope this will become a topic where people can share their knowledge".
That WAS my intention. This was meant to be a genuine thread on "Queen 1". I wanted to share my knowledge with you guys, and I see that as a two way street. (I acknowledge Lester's contribution - and I hope that between us all - we can come up with some sort of definitive picture).
However, it soon became clear that this would not be so - unless I was totally honest. So there you have it. If WE want to discuss "Queen 1" - then we have to clear the decks and put all our cards on the table. That way, every one benefits.
No, I am not irritated at all. I feel that now is the time for the truth to come out. I do not agree with the "mushroom" policy that comes from QP (keep the fans in the dark and feed them bull....). This is NOT the Freemasons, or matters of "National Security". I have NOT signed an official secrets act, and as Freddie said, "It's just a bloody record". So why all the strongarm tactics? Afterall, what is the seriousness of our sin - a few dedicated fans chatting on a website - and that upsets "them"?
I am very happy to answer questions, but let me make it clear. I have NO chip on my shoulder, and I am not bitter in anyway. (Life is too short). But I am fed-up to the back teeth with all (my own) pussy-footing around to avoid upsetting blank, nameless, insensitive faces.
"...I hope this will become a topic where people can share their knowledge".
That WAS my intention. This was meant to be a genuine thread on "Queen 1". I wanted to share my knowledge with you guys, and I see that as a two way street. (I acknowledge Lester's contribution - and I hope that between us all - we can come up with some sort of definitive picture).
However, it soon became clear that this would not be so - unless I was totally honest. So there you have it. If WE want to discuss "Queen 1" - then we have to clear the decks and put all our cards on the table. That way, every one benefits.
John S Stuart wrote:
.... but a copy has NOT been "found" by Greg or QP. These acetates were sold on the open market about 20 years ago.
You mean it was simply sold on music market along with other bootlegs? I wonder if its possible to find the same "acetates " post- Miracles albums on "the open market" ? :)
.... but a copy has NOT been "found" by Greg or QP. These acetates were sold on the open market about 20 years ago.
You mean it was simply sold on music market along with other bootlegs? I wonder if its possible to find the same "acetates " post- Miracles albums on "the open market" ? :)
As far as I know, the "Queen" De Lane Lea - Louie Austin version of "The Night Comes Down" was essentially a "live" track - but - recorded in the studio.
If it`s a "live" performance then why there`s double tracked acoustic guitar, triple tracked electric guitar, and double tracked harmonies? Moreover how could Fred sing lead and backing in a live performance?
EddieVanHalen: "...the fact that you have so much knowledge JSS, I'll doubt if other people on this board will have much to add".
Respectfully, I disagree. We are discussing the Eponymous Queen album. Others can add whatever trivia they like. They may not know about "Hangman", but they may be able to add stuff about the Photographic effects of the cover, or that their father's ex-girl friend was actually a tea-lady at De Lane Lea. This is NOT a "Hangman" thread, it is a "Queen 1" thread - and as such ALL relevent comments are fair contributions.
So good stuff! keep them coming! That's how I learn!
Respectfully, I disagree. We are discussing the Eponymous Queen album. Others can add whatever trivia they like. They may not know about "Hangman", but they may be able to add stuff about the Photographic effects of the cover, or that their father's ex-girl friend was actually a tea-lady at De Lane Lea. This is NOT a "Hangman" thread, it is a "Queen 1" thread - and as such ALL relevent comments are fair contributions.
So good stuff! keep them coming! That's how I learn!
Don't get me wrong John, I'd keep it too. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't keep a copy and trade it to someone else (not QP). But then, I'd be real sneaky and pass another copy onto QP like the sneaky fucker I'd be if I was in that position! heheheheheee *Smug mode off* Hint-hint.
I suppose I don't have to worry about trades, so perhaps it's easier for me to say that. But you said yourself, you don't get out there as much. Do you think there'll come a day when you'll sell it all and do a sneaky? But then, you do hold a grudge with 'them.'
Peace,
Adam.
I suppose I don't have to worry about trades, so perhaps it's easier for me to say that. But you said yourself, you don't get out there as much. Do you think there'll come a day when you'll sell it all and do a sneaky? But then, you do hold a grudge with 'them.'
Peace,
Adam.
Seb: Hello. How are you? Glad you could join in. I seriously look forward to your contributions.
"If it`s a "live" performance then why there`s double tracked acoustic guitar, triple tracked electric guitar, and double tracked harmonies? Moreover how could Fred sing lead and backing in a live performance?"
Good question Seb, but it all has to do with the semantics of language. Let's have another look at my previous statement.
"The Night Comes Down" was essentially a "live" track - but - recorded in the studio".
See the key word here Seb is "E S S E N T I A L L Y" that means essentially I guess.
(You know what it means - your just testing me right?)
It means that the song was "virtually" completed in one live take. No edits. No cut 'n paste. No chopping of tapes. It was revisited later. (I think they are called overdubs - that is when you "over dub" onto an existing track).
So do we want to get pedantic or what? You see "Bo Rap" for example was NEVER "essentially/virually" recorded live. It was lots of little bits stitched into a bigger song.
But "The Night Comes Down" was recorded whole. It was recorded "live" (but in a studio without a crowd - that is why there are no fans screaming "Freddieeeee"). Then sometime later - a few hours - a few days - a few weeks - who knows - who cares - our loveable "Queenies" returned to the live track and over-dubbed. But you already knew that - didn't you?
Hope this helps, but I am sure that you will find a way to discredit, or pull me up on some other "use of language" - I am such a "blaggard".
Seb: You can add some really useful info here. Instead of "nit-picking" why not write some serious stuff about this LP - or better still - if you have done so already - why not paste some the links to your page?
"If it`s a "live" performance then why there`s double tracked acoustic guitar, triple tracked electric guitar, and double tracked harmonies? Moreover how could Fred sing lead and backing in a live performance?"
Good question Seb, but it all has to do with the semantics of language. Let's have another look at my previous statement.
"The Night Comes Down" was essentially a "live" track - but - recorded in the studio".
See the key word here Seb is "E S S E N T I A L L Y" that means essentially I guess.
(You know what it means - your just testing me right?)
It means that the song was "virtually" completed in one live take. No edits. No cut 'n paste. No chopping of tapes. It was revisited later. (I think they are called overdubs - that is when you "over dub" onto an existing track).
So do we want to get pedantic or what? You see "Bo Rap" for example was NEVER "essentially/virually" recorded live. It was lots of little bits stitched into a bigger song.
But "The Night Comes Down" was recorded whole. It was recorded "live" (but in a studio without a crowd - that is why there are no fans screaming "Freddieeeee"). Then sometime later - a few hours - a few days - a few weeks - who knows - who cares - our loveable "Queenies" returned to the live track and over-dubbed. But you already knew that - didn't you?
Hope this helps, but I am sure that you will find a way to discredit, or pull me up on some other "use of language" - I am such a "blaggard".
Seb: You can add some really useful info here. Instead of "nit-picking" why not write some serious stuff about this LP - or better still - if you have done so already - why not paste some the links to your page?
Adam Baboolal: "But then, you do hold a grudge with 'them."
"NO, No, no, no, no, no, no, - mama mia!"
No. I hold NO grudges with anyone. I am sick to my stomach of scurrying about in the dark. Why should I be part of the "dark side" master Vader?
Even in this 'zone, there are those who would have me gagged - why? Wherein is my crime? No, "tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may".
I have great admiration for the GUYS. (Freddie, Brian, Roger and John). But in my opinion, all the rest are "bottom feeders". (Am I allowed to use that phrase... checking PC dictionary... ah yes, fish at the bottom of the food chain... phew...)
"like the sneaky fucker I'd be if I was in that position!" Do you think... you'll sell it all and do a sneaky?"
No Adam - that says far more about you - than it does of me.
"NO, No, no, no, no, no, no, - mama mia!"
No. I hold NO grudges with anyone. I am sick to my stomach of scurrying about in the dark. Why should I be part of the "dark side" master Vader?
Even in this 'zone, there are those who would have me gagged - why? Wherein is my crime? No, "tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may".
I have great admiration for the GUYS. (Freddie, Brian, Roger and John). But in my opinion, all the rest are "bottom feeders". (Am I allowed to use that phrase... checking PC dictionary... ah yes, fish at the bottom of the food chain... phew...)
"like the sneaky fucker I'd be if I was in that position!" Do you think... you'll sell it all and do a sneaky?"
No Adam - that says far more about you - than it does of me.
So, given the shortness of studio time Queen had to make this album were touches like the "some-one" in MFK moving from one side to the other really difficult to do? Likewise the echoes on the handclaps in the intro to Liar.
I know that even then there were left and right knobs on each track and you could make a track move by fiddling with them.
I'm more interested in what kind of gargantuan feat it was to make touches like these, given the obvious studio time constraints.
And how long does it take out of each session to prepare a studio, and to take the results away again afterwards?
(I know that context switching is hard for me, but for them all this stop/start must've been murder.)
I know that even then there were left and right knobs on each track and you could make a track move by fiddling with them.
I'm more interested in what kind of gargantuan feat it was to make touches like these, given the obvious studio time constraints.
And how long does it take out of each session to prepare a studio, and to take the results away again afterwards?
(I know that context switching is hard for me, but for them all this stop/start must've been murder.)
I havent actually much to add to this topic (infact I've nothing at all) except to say that this has been one of the best topics in along time. Its been an eye opener as regards stuff that I did know about and stuff that I didnt. I had my suspicions that a studio version of Hangman did exist - even if it is on acetate.
A massive thank you to all who posted here and long may it continue.
Dave
P.s Does anyone know what artist was using that same studio when Queen had to use their downtime?
A massive thank you to all who posted here and long may it continue.
Dave
P.s Does anyone know what artist was using that same studio when Queen had to use their downtime?
JSS. Thank you very much for the information!
Queen productions made mistakes and promised fans things they did not do.
A good example of that is this article posted on queenzone: http://www.queenzone.com/resources/articles/files/86592892000.htm
But in the end, queen productions is also the company we, the fans, depend on. They have the power, money and music and they decide what will be released and what will not. I have mixed feelings about that.
Brian May, Roger Taylor and John Deacon are multimillionaires. They have earned millions of pounds because we ,the fans, bought their products.
Queen will release 100 bootlegs in about a month time (for download) That's a good step in the right direction i think! Another good step was the wembley dvd. Like it or not, it DID include a rare rehearsal and footage of the other wembley date. On fire at the bowl is another great release.. with bonus material and rare unseen stuff. BUT...all those releases are commercial products put out to make money.
Queen productions is a company and wants to make money.. they have a commercial interest in what will be released and what will not.
A release like Houston '77 or the complete European Hot Space tour on DVD (it has been proffesionally filmed) is great but probably will never happen.. queen productions can't sell the complete european hot space tour on a big scale and make enough money out of it.
Luckily every once in a while a rarity gets stolen and released on bootleg. I'm not happy about the fact that there are thiefs (they are criminals and i reject their behaviour and Queen productions should be more carefull and safety with their and other people's (like JSS) rare recordings!!) but at least the MUSIC is available...mixed feelings again.
To end my post: i'm not a demanding fan who wants everything because i'm happy with every rarity that is released... but sometimes it frustrates me knowing that their is so much more great Queen stuff in the vaults or in the collection of private collectors that will probably never see the day of light (in some cases)
Queen productions made mistakes and promised fans things they did not do.
A good example of that is this article posted on queenzone: http://www.queenzone.com/resources/articles/files/86592892000.htm
But in the end, queen productions is also the company we, the fans, depend on. They have the power, money and music and they decide what will be released and what will not. I have mixed feelings about that.
Brian May, Roger Taylor and John Deacon are multimillionaires. They have earned millions of pounds because we ,the fans, bought their products.
Queen will release 100 bootlegs in about a month time (for download) That's a good step in the right direction i think! Another good step was the wembley dvd. Like it or not, it DID include a rare rehearsal and footage of the other wembley date. On fire at the bowl is another great release.. with bonus material and rare unseen stuff. BUT...all those releases are commercial products put out to make money.
Queen productions is a company and wants to make money.. they have a commercial interest in what will be released and what will not.
A release like Houston '77 or the complete European Hot Space tour on DVD (it has been proffesionally filmed) is great but probably will never happen.. queen productions can't sell the complete european hot space tour on a big scale and make enough money out of it.
Luckily every once in a while a rarity gets stolen and released on bootleg. I'm not happy about the fact that there are thiefs (they are criminals and i reject their behaviour and Queen productions should be more carefull and safety with their and other people's (like JSS) rare recordings!!) but at least the MUSIC is available...mixed feelings again.
To end my post: i'm not a demanding fan who wants everything because i'm happy with every rarity that is released... but sometimes it frustrates me knowing that their is so much more great Queen stuff in the vaults or in the collection of private collectors that will probably never see the day of light (in some cases)
John - would you be willing to sell the Hangman acetate to QP for what you paid 20 years ago?
Of course, QP probably would not be willing to pay, as they were not willing to pay for Ghost of a Smile or the Montreal 81 concert.
Of course, QP probably would not be willing to pay, as they were not willing to pay for Ghost of a Smile or the Montreal 81 concert.
What do you mean you don't hold grudges? You said yourself on the previous page, "how about an old chinese proverb?
'Trick me once, shame on you. Trick me twice, shame on me'"
In reference to your first and last dealing with QP. I thought it was a fair question to ask you.
And yes, the sneaky bit does say a lot, doesn't it? Hee hee!
Peace,
Adam.
'Trick me once, shame on you. Trick me twice, shame on me'"
In reference to your first and last dealing with QP. I thought it was a fair question to ask you.
And yes, the sneaky bit does say a lot, doesn't it? Hee hee!
Peace,
Adam.
Martin Packer: Honestly, I do not know. The best person to answer that sort of question would be Seb. Over to you Seb...
I'll give the guy his due, if anyone in Queenzone could answer this, he could.
Mr Mercury: Does anyone know what artist was using tha same studio when Queen had to use their downtime?
I recall seeing a "Freddie Mercury Tribute" MTV interview in which David Bowie claimed that Queen shared his downtime. (That is Bowie had booked the studio and was priority - Queen were allowed to record when Bowie was absent or went home).
I'll give the guy his due, if anyone in Queenzone could answer this, he could.
Mr Mercury: Does anyone know what artist was using tha same studio when Queen had to use their downtime?
I recall seeing a "Freddie Mercury Tribute" MTV interview in which David Bowie claimed that Queen shared his downtime. (That is Bowie had booked the studio and was priority - Queen were allowed to record when Bowie was absent or went home).