Yeah, you may be right on that one, Ron. I cannot come with a good explanation for your Ogre Battle acetate. What was Trident doing with/to that BBC recording? Another puzzle. But then again See What A Fool I've Been was partly recorded at the BBC sessions, and it was used as a B-side. If your acetate is as early as December 1973 (as you think), then bear in mind that (according to official sources) the next single was not picked yet. So maybe they did consider OB as a B-side, or even an A-side for some kind of early promo (perhaps for the advertising of the BBC broadcasting). I do not know. Adam Unger describes the edit as lacking intro (and outro - an obvious choice if you cut the intro) and we know that the band and label were looking for a more immediate effect in their second single as they were told that KYA flopped because it took too much time to start (sic).
I know that this is all HIGHLY especulative, but the edit timings are indeed radio friendly. As John put it, someone was in the studio playing with those recordings. I should add that someone was probably PAID to do so, on behalf of a rather UNKNOWN band. So there might be a VERY good reason. In the particular case of KYA I cannot think of a better reason - After all, KYA WAS picked as the first single! (And, as I have said, a similar approach was used on the US edit).
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I do not know. Adam Unger describes the edit as lacking intro (and outro - an obvious choice if you cut the intro) and we know that the band and label were looking for a more immediate effect in their second single as they were told that KYA flopped because it took too much time to start (sic).
I know that this is all HIGHLY especulative, but the edit timings are indeed radio friendly.
Interesting. You've made a point there! When you listen to the OB edit it doesn't have an intro at all. It immediatly starts with the screams that fade in, followed by Freddie. Would be a lot better for radio promotion than the long version.
Maybe that's why they also edited WWRY which I have on an EMI 7" acetate. Although the original intro isn't that long.
Edits - who needs them?
Gentlemen - it could be that these discs were cut for Radio airplay promos for Radio stations only - and were not intended for commercial release.
For example, Ron's Ogre Battle would fit better into the flow a breakfast show - rather than the full album track. Particularly, if it was a BBC show - employing the track as a forthcoming teaser.
I also think that some special "radio friendly" edits were cut in the USA for the Beatles hey jude - but the edited version was never (i think) released in any commercial format by the band.
So far, so good. But that still leaves us with the major headache of why edit the KYA version - when it is not the commercial version anyway?
This returns me full circle to my opening gambit. That the disc was cut inbetween Trident and Emi, and that the long side was a type of portfolio showcase to attract a potential record deal, and that the short side was indeed meant (at the time) for radio airplay. So the disc would have been hawked around both the industry and the media in the hope of some recognition or pick-up.
Sometime later the band are officially signed by emi, and professionlly re-record much of their de lan lea and other demos - including the latest KYA version. It is this newer version that is remarketed or rebranded (just like new Daz or the new Vauxhall), as another potential single.
The rest they say is history...
I know that the above is my best guess, but it seems to be the only solution that fits all the facts that we know about - yet is still able to answer the sets of new questions which we keep asking.
Any other ideads?
For example, Ron's Ogre Battle would fit better into the flow a breakfast show - rather than the full album track. Particularly, if it was a BBC show - employing the track as a forthcoming teaser.
I also think that some special "radio friendly" edits were cut in the USA for the Beatles hey jude - but the edited version was never (i think) released in any commercial format by the band.
So far, so good. But that still leaves us with the major headache of why edit the KYA version - when it is not the commercial version anyway?
This returns me full circle to my opening gambit. That the disc was cut inbetween Trident and Emi, and that the long side was a type of portfolio showcase to attract a potential record deal, and that the short side was indeed meant (at the time) for radio airplay. So the disc would have been hawked around both the industry and the media in the hope of some recognition or pick-up.
Sometime later the band are officially signed by emi, and professionlly re-record much of their de lan lea and other demos - including the latest KYA version. It is this newer version that is remarketed or rebranded (just like new Daz or the new Vauxhall), as another potential single.
The rest they say is history...
I know that the above is my best guess, but it seems to be the only solution that fits all the facts that we know about - yet is still able to answer the sets of new questions which we keep asking.
Any other ideads?
About sharing: since QP and Mr Brooks didn't gave us the list of stuff what would be released on box-set, I think it's okay to share such tracks as this KYA version. We don't know if it's gonna be released or not, we know that it was never released before, we know that it's different to already released versions (as well as all demos) - so it can be shared, IMO.
I do like that theory, John. But in the case of KYA it stills do not FULLY convince me because of... the music. I will add to that later.
Serry: Exactly!
Serry: Exactly!
Hmmm
Hopefully no one resents my re-hashing this topic, but I've been out of the loop and just discovered this acetate subject and have listened to the edit.
I read through the entire thread and have a few thoughts of my own regarding the timeline for the Keep Yourself Alive song's evolution.
When was this recorded? I agree with those who say it was after the album version was recorded, what we generally consider the standard version. Queen recorded their first album between June and November, 1972. Issues with Trident postponed the album's release a good seven months. However, Queen perform their 1st BBC session in February of '73, performing a version closer to the standard version. By then, they were simply waiting on Trident to get them a publishing company, because the album was done. By this point, they would have picked the single to be released (the standard version), and performed *that* version at the Beeb to promote it.
The period of time they recorded was evidently fraught with arguments and debates over songs and their respective versions. It's not illogical to assume that two or three renditions of each song were put down on tape and mixed, before the band decided on which they liked. Look at The Night Comes Down; the Roy Thomas Baker version recorded wasn't used, instead, they used the old De Lane Lea version. Mad The Swine was left off completely because of arguments over the percussion sound. No one questioned that a second version of KYA was recorded once the Long Lost Re-take surfaced in 1991...
So, why an acetate and an edit? Maybe we're looking at this backwards. We assume that the LLRT (Long Lost Re-Take) was always meant to be the four-minute-long version on the Hollywood Records QUEEN CD and Crown Jewels Promo single. Perhaps, the short version was meant to be the complete song, and the long version was simply *the long version* (aka, the unaltered copy of what the boys played on the day...the master version, if you will). The Cross did a similar thing with Ain't Put Nothin' Down. The Long Version appeared on the New Dark Ages single, but was not titled that on the single's sleeve. It's not until we compare it to the album version (which came out after) that we refer to this as the Long Version. Our sense of order defaults to the albums as the point of standard. If it's different from the album version, the album version is normal, the other version (either released before or after) is different. My point here is that maybe Queen's original intention for the KYA-LLRT was for it to be the 3:30 one. The one marked long was simply a back up, so that the nothing of the source material was lost. When deciding to add it as a bonus track in 1991, Brian obviously gave it his stamp of approval (his liner note) and was maybe even consulted on which version to use.
Here's something to think about: what if the *LONG* in Long Lost Re-take refers NOT to the fact that this Re-take was *Long-Lost*, as popular expression has it, but that this was the *Long Version* of the *Lost Re-Take*?
Take note how it's listed on the back of the 1991 HR QUEEN re-issue:
12. KEEP YOURSELF ALIVE (LONG LOST RE-TAKE) (4:04)
It's NOT listed as (Long-Lost Re-take), which proper grammer would dictate, if it was truly meant to read as Long-Lost.
Either way, they decided to use what we now know as the *standard* version as both album and single version (except in the US, who got it as an edit on the single). The acetate may have been pressed so that the band and/or Roy could take it home and listen to it, to decide if it was going to be THE version they used.
By all accounts, the boys were meticulous in the studio, working on one song at a time before moving onto the next one (partially because of the down-time schedule of recording and partially because they were perfectionists).
Here's a tidbit I'm surprised no one pointed out: The version played live on Live Killers seems closer to the LLRT than the standard ve
I read through the entire thread and have a few thoughts of my own regarding the timeline for the Keep Yourself Alive song's evolution.
When was this recorded? I agree with those who say it was after the album version was recorded, what we generally consider the standard version. Queen recorded their first album between June and November, 1972. Issues with Trident postponed the album's release a good seven months. However, Queen perform their 1st BBC session in February of '73, performing a version closer to the standard version. By then, they were simply waiting on Trident to get them a publishing company, because the album was done. By this point, they would have picked the single to be released (the standard version), and performed *that* version at the Beeb to promote it.
The period of time they recorded was evidently fraught with arguments and debates over songs and their respective versions. It's not illogical to assume that two or three renditions of each song were put down on tape and mixed, before the band decided on which they liked. Look at The Night Comes Down; the Roy Thomas Baker version recorded wasn't used, instead, they used the old De Lane Lea version. Mad The Swine was left off completely because of arguments over the percussion sound. No one questioned that a second version of KYA was recorded once the Long Lost Re-take surfaced in 1991...
So, why an acetate and an edit? Maybe we're looking at this backwards. We assume that the LLRT (Long Lost Re-Take) was always meant to be the four-minute-long version on the Hollywood Records QUEEN CD and Crown Jewels Promo single. Perhaps, the short version was meant to be the complete song, and the long version was simply *the long version* (aka, the unaltered copy of what the boys played on the day...the master version, if you will). The Cross did a similar thing with Ain't Put Nothin' Down. The Long Version appeared on the New Dark Ages single, but was not titled that on the single's sleeve. It's not until we compare it to the album version (which came out after) that we refer to this as the Long Version. Our sense of order defaults to the albums as the point of standard. If it's different from the album version, the album version is normal, the other version (either released before or after) is different. My point here is that maybe Queen's original intention for the KYA-LLRT was for it to be the 3:30 one. The one marked long was simply a back up, so that the nothing of the source material was lost. When deciding to add it as a bonus track in 1991, Brian obviously gave it his stamp of approval (his liner note) and was maybe even consulted on which version to use.
Here's something to think about: what if the *LONG* in Long Lost Re-take refers NOT to the fact that this Re-take was *Long-Lost*, as popular expression has it, but that this was the *Long Version* of the *Lost Re-Take*?
Take note how it's listed on the back of the 1991 HR QUEEN re-issue:
12. KEEP YOURSELF ALIVE (LONG LOST RE-TAKE) (4:04)
It's NOT listed as (Long-Lost Re-take), which proper grammer would dictate, if it was truly meant to read as Long-Lost.
Either way, they decided to use what we now know as the *standard* version as both album and single version (except in the US, who got it as an edit on the single). The acetate may have been pressed so that the band and/or Roy could take it home and listen to it, to decide if it was going to be THE version they used.
By all accounts, the boys were meticulous in the studio, working on one song at a time before moving onto the next one (partially because of the down-time schedule of recording and partially because they were perfectionists).
Here's a tidbit I'm surprised no one pointed out: The version played live on Live Killers seems closer to the LLRT than the standard ve
I would've thought my entry'd garner SOME kind of reply...
thanks ferdy for uploading this !!!
Give it longer then a day rhyneking.
I would've thought my entry'd garner SOME kind of reply...
So would I. ;)
I'm having a hard enough time following this thread, but it's fascinating nonetheless. I won't presume to have much of a perspective on this, but rhyeking's ideas sound very interesting and quite plausible to me. I look forward to what JSS and others have to say about them.
Keep it coming guys.
Rhyeking: I read through the entire thread and have a few thoughts of my own regarding the timeline for the Keep Yourself Alive song's evolution.
When was this recorded? I agree with those who say it was after the album version was recorded, what we generally consider the standard version.
Respectfully, I disagree. The First recorded version hails from neither EMI or Trident but De Lane Lea - this De Lane Lea Original Demo lasts 3:40 - while the Long Lost Re-take clocks in at 4:05 and the Long Lost Re-take edit at 3:29. The official album version at 3:47 - this means that the album version is closer to the De Lane Lea Demo.
The Long version (and I accept your interpretation of long) is about 20 seconds longer - also the edit is clocked in at 3:29 (closer to the LP version) while the US edit 7" was clocked at US 7" 3:25.
I STILL suggest that this take was recorded between De Lane Lea and EMI (hence lost because ti was neithr - yet still twixt and between) and that the edit was not cut down to a single size - but to fit more with the LP banding - as why else are all the LP versions/candidates similar size - but the long version extended?
This suggests a more "live" variation (yes - we have been here before - it is possible to record live in a studio - heavens above - that's how the Beatles first LP was cut) - but a variation that may not have been overdubbed to the extent of the EMI versions - and hence the additional length.
The period of time they recorded was evidently fraught with arguments and debates over songs and their respective versions. It's not illogical to assume that two or three renditions of each song were put down on tape and mixed, before the band decided on which they liked.
Not for Queen's debut LP. As Brian has said, they did not have the time (due to recording downtime constraints) and that they wanted a quick album to showcase their talents (and have a product for the grandkids). Infact they had so little time, they were forced to use one of the de lane lea tracks The Night Comes Down - as is.
Look at The Night Comes Down; the Roy Thomas Baker version recorded wasn't used, instead, they used the old De Lane Lea version. Mad The Swine was left off completely because of arguments over the percussion sound.
True, but these were not laboured. They were quickly moved onto the next bit. I still don't know if a Roy TB version of TNCD was completed - or even recorded.
The version played live on Live Killers seems closer to the LLRT than the standard version. The first time I heard the LLRT, I thought that and I just gave them both another listen to be sure.
Again, the fast wwry was only recorded for the bbc - but that too was delivrered live on the same tour, but as i also suggest above - this is perhaps the closest to a live vinyl version anyway!
I know that I seem like a stuck record, but so far, I can find no evidence to suggest this track was recorded post-lp.
I think you may be correct in your interpretation of long - but I woul still argue this track was recorded between the one (de lane lea) and the other (emi) - and that's why it has been lost for so long - and why freddie could own a personal acetate.
When was this recorded? I agree with those who say it was after the album version was recorded, what we generally consider the standard version.
Respectfully, I disagree. The First recorded version hails from neither EMI or Trident but De Lane Lea - this De Lane Lea Original Demo lasts 3:40 - while the Long Lost Re-take clocks in at 4:05 and the Long Lost Re-take edit at 3:29. The official album version at 3:47 - this means that the album version is closer to the De Lane Lea Demo.
The Long version (and I accept your interpretation of long) is about 20 seconds longer - also the edit is clocked in at 3:29 (closer to the LP version) while the US edit 7" was clocked at US 7" 3:25.
I STILL suggest that this take was recorded between De Lane Lea and EMI (hence lost because ti was neithr - yet still twixt and between) and that the edit was not cut down to a single size - but to fit more with the LP banding - as why else are all the LP versions/candidates similar size - but the long version extended?
This suggests a more "live" variation (yes - we have been here before - it is possible to record live in a studio - heavens above - that's how the Beatles first LP was cut) - but a variation that may not have been overdubbed to the extent of the EMI versions - and hence the additional length.
The period of time they recorded was evidently fraught with arguments and debates over songs and their respective versions. It's not illogical to assume that two or three renditions of each song were put down on tape and mixed, before the band decided on which they liked.
Not for Queen's debut LP. As Brian has said, they did not have the time (due to recording downtime constraints) and that they wanted a quick album to showcase their talents (and have a product for the grandkids). Infact they had so little time, they were forced to use one of the de lane lea tracks The Night Comes Down - as is.
Look at The Night Comes Down; the Roy Thomas Baker version recorded wasn't used, instead, they used the old De Lane Lea version. Mad The Swine was left off completely because of arguments over the percussion sound.
True, but these were not laboured. They were quickly moved onto the next bit. I still don't know if a Roy TB version of TNCD was completed - or even recorded.
The version played live on Live Killers seems closer to the LLRT than the standard version. The first time I heard the LLRT, I thought that and I just gave them both another listen to be sure.
Again, the fast wwry was only recorded for the bbc - but that too was delivrered live on the same tour, but as i also suggest above - this is perhaps the closest to a live vinyl version anyway!
I know that I seem like a stuck record, but so far, I can find no evidence to suggest this track was recorded post-lp.
I think you may be correct in your interpretation of long - but I woul still argue this track was recorded between the one (de lane lea) and the other (emi) - and that's why it has been lost for so long - and why freddie could own a personal acetate.
When I said I agreed that it was recorded after the LP version, I meant it was likely a subsequent take recorded during the down-time debut album sessions, not a version recorded after November of 1972 (when the album was purported to have been completed and mixed). It's possible it was a "live" studio take, but there are distinct mixing differences between the acetate edit and official Long Lost Re-take (and not just in the drum and guitar sound, and the earlier fade-out).
Brian's liner note in the Hollywood Records QUEEN re-issue reads, in full:
"This is a complete re-make of 'Keep Yourself Alive'. This version never surfaced anywhere. It contains many new ideas and quirks, as well as reproductions of some of the old ones."
His syntax implies that the structure of the LP version (and the De Lane Lea Demo) came first, and the structure of this version came after (as they played around with new ideas).
Brian has said that the band did not know what Elektra was up to in North America half the time, so the editting of the LP version from 3:47 to 3:30 probably went unnoticed, and subsequently never factored into the evolution of the song from the band's point of view.
The very existence of so many versions, of this song in the Queen canon (official or otherwise) say to me that either the band thought highly of the song from the day it was written, or Brian championed it throughout the early days (probably a combination of both). The band record it for their first official "demo" tape, to use to solicite a record deal. They then place it not only first on their debut album, but as their debut single. The importance of these choices speaks to Queen's need to find a song (and version) that will introduce the 1972/1973 general public to their music. They appear to have focused that job on KYA. I don't find it surprising that they choose to record at least one alternate take of it, either because Brian had a few new ideas or the band couldn't decided which worked better.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but everything I've read indicates that the band didn't have time/facilities to record material between the De Lane session and the 1st album session. Once they began work in Trident Studios, they were on a down-time schedule. This points to 'Hangman', 'Rock 'n' Roll Medley', 'Polar Bear', 'Feelings' and 'Silver Salmon' being recorded live in the studio likely in the early Trident sessions.
Brian's liner note in the Hollywood Records QUEEN re-issue reads, in full:
"This is a complete re-make of 'Keep Yourself Alive'. This version never surfaced anywhere. It contains many new ideas and quirks, as well as reproductions of some of the old ones."
His syntax implies that the structure of the LP version (and the De Lane Lea Demo) came first, and the structure of this version came after (as they played around with new ideas).
Brian has said that the band did not know what Elektra was up to in North America half the time, so the editting of the LP version from 3:47 to 3:30 probably went unnoticed, and subsequently never factored into the evolution of the song from the band's point of view.
The very existence of so many versions, of this song in the Queen canon (official or otherwise) say to me that either the band thought highly of the song from the day it was written, or Brian championed it throughout the early days (probably a combination of both). The band record it for their first official "demo" tape, to use to solicite a record deal. They then place it not only first on their debut album, but as their debut single. The importance of these choices speaks to Queen's need to find a song (and version) that will introduce the 1972/1973 general public to their music. They appear to have focused that job on KYA. I don't find it surprising that they choose to record at least one alternate take of it, either because Brian had a few new ideas or the band couldn't decided which worked better.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but everything I've read indicates that the band didn't have time/facilities to record material between the De Lane session and the 1st album session. Once they began work in Trident Studios, they were on a down-time schedule. This points to 'Hangman', 'Rock 'n' Roll Medley', 'Polar Bear', 'Feelings' and 'Silver Salmon' being recorded live in the studio likely in the early Trident sessions.
Good points, but I think that we are trying to academicalise something that may be far simpler.
I will need to look out the Alexis Korner BBC radio interview wherein Brian says that 8 different takes of KYA exist, and then he goes on to explain why.
From memory he states that each recording lacked something, or that they were unhappy with the mix, or the sound, but they kept returning to the original version because it sounded raw and unpolished.
I think if I find the interview, I will transcribe it here, as it very likely, will answer many of your questions.
I will need to look out the Alexis Korner BBC radio interview wherein Brian says that 8 different takes of KYA exist, and then he goes on to explain why.
From memory he states that each recording lacked something, or that they were unhappy with the mix, or the sound, but they kept returning to the original version because it sounded raw and unpolished.
I think if I find the interview, I will transcribe it here, as it very likely, will answer many of your questions.
Good points, but I think that we are trying to academicalise something that may be far simpler.
Academicalise??
John, I believe you have invented a word :)))