On the 'In The Studio Interview/Radio Show' for 'News Of The World', Brian said they ran into the same problem with 'Sleeping On The Sidewalk'. They recorded this track as a live studio take, to get a different, more spontaneous feel for it. The band found each take was getting worse and worse. Brian said something to the effect of "the song was falling apart". He decided they'd nailed it as best they could on the first take and that's what ended up on the album.
Sounds like the same thing happened here.
Eight takes? Wow!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
RhyeKing: "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."
Brian's wording makes you think that perhaps the Long Lost "Retake" version came after Queen I. Perhaps Brian means "new" as in new to the public, as opposed to "post Queen I".
Brian's wording makes you think that perhaps the Long Lost "Retake" version came after Queen I. Perhaps Brian means "new" as in new to the public, as opposed to "post Queen I".
Hey Adam,
Cool to have a remote conversation via the message board! lol
As I corrected earlier, by "after" I mean after the standard version was recorded, but during the first album's session in 1972.
It would make little sense for the band to re-record the song after the first album was completed. The BBC recordings were only done to promote the band and the music, who already moved onto to work on their second album (Queen II)
The only reasonable window of time for the LLRT of KYA to have been recorded was after the De Lane Lea Demos and before the end of the QUEEN sessions. They recorded in De Lane Lea in the fall of 1971 (possibly into the winter) and played only 5 gigs in 1972, because of John and Brian's school commitments, the quest to find a recording contract, the eventual signing with Trident and the down-time recording schedule (June thru November). My own guess is that June to November period, where the rest of the album was recorded.
Has anyone heard any of the 5 1972 gigs on bootleg? I'd be curious to know which versions of KYA were played, which may give some insight as to how the "new ideas" evolved and what was abandoned.
Cool to have a remote conversation via the message board! lol
As I corrected earlier, by "after" I mean after the standard version was recorded, but during the first album's session in 1972.
It would make little sense for the band to re-record the song after the first album was completed. The BBC recordings were only done to promote the band and the music, who already moved onto to work on their second album (Queen II)
The only reasonable window of time for the LLRT of KYA to have been recorded was after the De Lane Lea Demos and before the end of the QUEEN sessions. They recorded in De Lane Lea in the fall of 1971 (possibly into the winter) and played only 5 gigs in 1972, because of John and Brian's school commitments, the quest to find a recording contract, the eventual signing with Trident and the down-time recording schedule (June thru November). My own guess is that June to November period, where the rest of the album was recorded.
Has anyone heard any of the 5 1972 gigs on bootleg? I'd be curious to know which versions of KYA were played, which may give some insight as to how the "new ideas" evolved and what was abandoned.
I was just able to listen to the short version of this, and I have a view, for what worth.
I have always understood the "long lost retake" to be an alternative performance/mix made during the first album sessions, cut to an acetate to play for people, and then forgotten about.
Plenty of archive releases have included multiple takes of the same song - ELvis, The Beatles, Freddie Mercury, etc. There is no suggestion that "take 2" was made significantly later than "take 1" in any particular case.
TO support this, consider "The Night Comes Down". The story I always understood was that subsequent Trident attempts to produce the song didn't better the original which was therefore used. There must therefore have been other "takes" of TNCD made throughout 1972.
I think I'm starting to waffle, so will stop now.
I have always understood the "long lost retake" to be an alternative performance/mix made during the first album sessions, cut to an acetate to play for people, and then forgotten about.
Plenty of archive releases have included multiple takes of the same song - ELvis, The Beatles, Freddie Mercury, etc. There is no suggestion that "take 2" was made significantly later than "take 1" in any particular case.
TO support this, consider "The Night Comes Down". The story I always understood was that subsequent Trident attempts to produce the song didn't better the original which was therefore used. There must therefore have been other "takes" of TNCD made throughout 1972.
I think I'm starting to waffle, so will stop now.
I’ll officially be the first to admit I was wrong in my early assessment of the evolution of “Keep Yourself Alive”. Off…waaaaay off. But hey, I never presumed to know everything…
The following is as comprehensive a look at “Keep Yourself Alive” as I can give, given the new evidence present to me by my buddy, Andrew Reid, with whom I fleshed out the following new theory.
Let’s start off with an excerpt from a transcript from a 1983 BBC Radio Interview with Brian May (from this site: http://www.brianmayworld.com/GuitarGreats.htm ):
“Brian May: The first recording of it ever was in De Lane Lea when we did it ourselves and I’ve still got that recording and I think it’s very good and has something which the single never had. But THEY pressurised us very strongly to redo all the tracks and we redid ‘Keep Yourself Alive’ with Roy and it was pretty awful, actually. I thought it was terrible and I was very unhappy about it and I thought the De Lane Lea one was better and I eventually managed to persuade Roy that it was better as well. So, we went back in and did it again in a way that was a bit more true to the original. But there is no way that you can ever really repeat something. I have this great belief that the magic of the moment can never be recaptured and, although we ended up with something that was technically in the playing and perhaps even in the recording a bit better than the De Lane Lea thing. I still think that the De Lane Lea one had that certain sort of magic, so I was never really happy. As it turned out no one else was ever really happy either and we kept remixing it. We thought that it’s the mix that’s wrong, we kept remixing and there must have been, at least, seven or eight different mixes by different groups of people. Eventually we went in and did a mix with Mike Stone, our engineer, and that’s the one that we were in the end happiest with. That’s the one we put out.
But, to my mind ‘Keep Yourself Alive’ was never really satisfactory. Never had that magic that it should have had.”
So, here’s my interpretation of what that means:
Version #1: the De Lane Lea demo, recorded and mixed in the fall of 1971.
Version #2: the Long Lost Re-take, recorded in the summer of 1972. This version is listed as the “Long Lost Original Version” on the Crown Jewels KYA Promo CD single, from 1998. The LLOV is the same mix as the LLRT. It lends credibility to the this theory, that this version is called “Original” on an officially released product, as it’s the original version recorded for the album, at the record company and Roy Thomas Baker’s (initially) request. The “THEY” of which Brian speaks, who didn’t like the De Lane Lea “demo” version.
On the acetate is a slightly different mix (the original mix), and an edit of that mix (the Long Version and Short Version respectively). When Hollywood Records put together the re-issue of Queen’s first album (Queen, CD 61064), the take was uncovered, dusted off, and mixed and remastered for that CD issue. It was possibly remastered again in 1998 for the “Crown Jewels” ‘Keep Yourself Alive’ Promotional CD single.
Why cut the acetate? So the powers-that-be could give it a listen and test which length worked better. Or the band could pass it around and say, “is this as bad as *we* think it is?”
Version #3: the Album version, recorded *after* the LLRT version, because Brian was quite unsatisfied with that version. It then goes through “seven or eight” different remixes, before Mike Stone mixes it as close to Brian’s satisfaction as possible.
It was then edited by Elektra in the US and Canada, from 3:47 to 3:30.
Version #4: the 1st BBC session version. Recorded new on Feb. 5th, it’s again an attempt both recreate the De Lane Lea version and the Album version, to promote the forthcoming album.
Version #5: the 2nd BBC session version. Recorded as a mixture of the album version and new vocals and guitar. Again, to promote the 1st album.
This is my revised
The following is as comprehensive a look at “Keep Yourself Alive” as I can give, given the new evidence present to me by my buddy, Andrew Reid, with whom I fleshed out the following new theory.
Let’s start off with an excerpt from a transcript from a 1983 BBC Radio Interview with Brian May (from this site: http://www.brianmayworld.com/GuitarGreats.htm ):
“Brian May: The first recording of it ever was in De Lane Lea when we did it ourselves and I’ve still got that recording and I think it’s very good and has something which the single never had. But THEY pressurised us very strongly to redo all the tracks and we redid ‘Keep Yourself Alive’ with Roy and it was pretty awful, actually. I thought it was terrible and I was very unhappy about it and I thought the De Lane Lea one was better and I eventually managed to persuade Roy that it was better as well. So, we went back in and did it again in a way that was a bit more true to the original. But there is no way that you can ever really repeat something. I have this great belief that the magic of the moment can never be recaptured and, although we ended up with something that was technically in the playing and perhaps even in the recording a bit better than the De Lane Lea thing. I still think that the De Lane Lea one had that certain sort of magic, so I was never really happy. As it turned out no one else was ever really happy either and we kept remixing it. We thought that it’s the mix that’s wrong, we kept remixing and there must have been, at least, seven or eight different mixes by different groups of people. Eventually we went in and did a mix with Mike Stone, our engineer, and that’s the one that we were in the end happiest with. That’s the one we put out.
But, to my mind ‘Keep Yourself Alive’ was never really satisfactory. Never had that magic that it should have had.”
So, here’s my interpretation of what that means:
Version #1: the De Lane Lea demo, recorded and mixed in the fall of 1971.
Version #2: the Long Lost Re-take, recorded in the summer of 1972. This version is listed as the “Long Lost Original Version” on the Crown Jewels KYA Promo CD single, from 1998. The LLOV is the same mix as the LLRT. It lends credibility to the this theory, that this version is called “Original” on an officially released product, as it’s the original version recorded for the album, at the record company and Roy Thomas Baker’s (initially) request. The “THEY” of which Brian speaks, who didn’t like the De Lane Lea “demo” version.
On the acetate is a slightly different mix (the original mix), and an edit of that mix (the Long Version and Short Version respectively). When Hollywood Records put together the re-issue of Queen’s first album (Queen, CD 61064), the take was uncovered, dusted off, and mixed and remastered for that CD issue. It was possibly remastered again in 1998 for the “Crown Jewels” ‘Keep Yourself Alive’ Promotional CD single.
Why cut the acetate? So the powers-that-be could give it a listen and test which length worked better. Or the band could pass it around and say, “is this as bad as *we* think it is?”
Version #3: the Album version, recorded *after* the LLRT version, because Brian was quite unsatisfied with that version. It then goes through “seven or eight” different remixes, before Mike Stone mixes it as close to Brian’s satisfaction as possible.
It was then edited by Elektra in the US and Canada, from 3:47 to 3:30.
Version #4: the 1st BBC session version. Recorded new on Feb. 5th, it’s again an attempt both recreate the De Lane Lea version and the Album version, to promote the forthcoming album.
Version #5: the 2nd BBC session version. Recorded as a mixture of the album version and new vocals and guitar. Again, to promote the 1st album.
This is my revised
rhyeking: "Let’s start off with an excerpt from a transcript from a 1983 BBC Radio Interview with Brian May"
Yes, this is the Alexis Korner interview I refered to above. Well spotted. If I knew it was on-line, I would have used it sooner.
Also, this is what I have been saying all along, namely that this version exists BETWEEN De Lane Lea and The Album version. (If you re-read the thread you will see that this is so). While I have not had the confidence to say for sure it was an EMI recording, nevertheless, I was still able to pinpoint it to this point in time - and it feels good to have one's "working out" independantly verified, so thank you.
I have no problem with "reasons" why acetates exist because, as PG correctly states, many Beatles (and Queen) discs were cut as a record of the evening's performance - and were later taken home by band members or even the sound staff (engineers). It is also interesting to note (even though we knew this before) that Brian kept his own acetate and that he still owns his original KYA demo on this format. (Though we can all share this version via the original demo tape).
Because the "retake" was cut by an third party (neither Trident or EMI) I initially thought it may lend credence to a "downtime" version - but in the light of you latest posting, that does not really matter any more, as it would appear that "time" and not "place" is the all important bit.
As said previously, this is what I think Queenzone does well. It is a forum open to ideas, and by sharing and revising these ideas, we can push the Queen envelope forwards, and I enjoy reading threads where I can learn that little something, that I never knew before, and this thread is a prime example of that.
All that is left, is for someone to distill all the information from this thread and turn it into a succinct article - then post it on Queenonline. Let's show those bugg*rs how it is REALLY done!
Yes, this is the Alexis Korner interview I refered to above. Well spotted. If I knew it was on-line, I would have used it sooner.
Also, this is what I have been saying all along, namely that this version exists BETWEEN De Lane Lea and The Album version. (If you re-read the thread you will see that this is so). While I have not had the confidence to say for sure it was an EMI recording, nevertheless, I was still able to pinpoint it to this point in time - and it feels good to have one's "working out" independantly verified, so thank you.
I have no problem with "reasons" why acetates exist because, as PG correctly states, many Beatles (and Queen) discs were cut as a record of the evening's performance - and were later taken home by band members or even the sound staff (engineers). It is also interesting to note (even though we knew this before) that Brian kept his own acetate and that he still owns his original KYA demo on this format. (Though we can all share this version via the original demo tape).
Because the "retake" was cut by an third party (neither Trident or EMI) I initially thought it may lend credence to a "downtime" version - but in the light of you latest posting, that does not really matter any more, as it would appear that "time" and not "place" is the all important bit.
As said previously, this is what I think Queenzone does well. It is a forum open to ideas, and by sharing and revising these ideas, we can push the Queen envelope forwards, and I enjoy reading threads where I can learn that little something, that I never knew before, and this thread is a prime example of that.
All that is left, is for someone to distill all the information from this thread and turn it into a succinct article - then post it on Queenonline. Let's show those bugg*rs how it is REALLY done!
I agree with you both.
The musical "disruption" I was referring earlier is well explained in the interview. I have also heard it again very recently (could not find the CD).
...And there THEY have it!
By the way, the 1998 promo CD single has EXACTLY the same version as the HR release of QUEEN's first album. No remastering there.
The musical "disruption" I was referring earlier is well explained in the interview. I have also heard it again very recently (could not find the CD).
...And there THEY have it!
By the way, the 1998 promo CD single has EXACTLY the same version as the HR release of QUEEN's first album. No remastering there.
Yeah, I wasn't sure if the LLRT/LLOV had been remastered again or not on the "Crown Jewels" promo. I gave them a listen and didn't hear a difference, but hey, you never know sometimes.
How succinct should the final report be? Should it include the different theories proposed, or just the final analysis, including the quote?
Patrick Lemieux
Phoenix - Queen Radio
www.live365.com/stations/madthedj
all Queen (and related) all the time
How succinct should the final report be? Should it include the different theories proposed, or just the final analysis, including the quote?
Patrick Lemieux
Phoenix - Queen Radio
www.live365.com/stations/madthedj
all Queen (and related) all the time
I think if some of you can edit this thread it would be great. I'm not so good in english writing so it would be better if done by someone else. I suggest a sort of article signed by Queenzone.com and the sent to the Record Collector's Digging for gold section. What do you think???
Agreed on the upload on both counts: thanks for sharing and can someone reupload it :-)
I don't think he reduced the value of his acetate at all. The Beatles put the Quarrymen stuff on teh Anthology discs and those tapes sold for a LOT of money not all that long ago. A copy is what it is. A copy. Cool to have to listen to, but obviously not the same as the real deal in terms of value.
I have an acetate of the first cheap trick album and man does that shellac they made it on stink, lol
I don't think he reduced the value of his acetate at all. The Beatles put the Quarrymen stuff on teh Anthology discs and those tapes sold for a LOT of money not all that long ago. A copy is what it is. A copy. Cool to have to listen to, but obviously not the same as the real deal in terms of value.
I have an acetate of the first cheap trick album and man does that shellac they made it on stink, lol
Ferdy, you own this acetate?
YES - He owns the acetate.
Ferdy, is the Long version on your acetate the same mix as the Short version (only longer)?
You see, the Short version and the Official Long Lost Re-take issue have distinct mixing differencing (not including the edit). Most noticable to me, the vocals at the end of the second chorus are different, as well as the guitar and drum sounds in some places.
Would posting your Long version be a violation of the "no Officially released stuff" rule, since it's a different mix?
Just asking, as I'd like to hear the Long Version on the acetate.
Rhyeking
You see, the Short version and the Official Long Lost Re-take issue have distinct mixing differencing (not including the edit). Most noticable to me, the vocals at the end of the second chorus are different, as well as the guitar and drum sounds in some places.
Would posting your Long version be a violation of the "no Officially released stuff" rule, since it's a different mix?
Just asking, as I'd like to hear the Long Version on the acetate.
Rhyeking
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 have sent a taped copy of Brians interview with Alexis Corner from 1983 to PG who has promised to make it available to everyone here just as soon as he can. (It's in the post as I type, Mr Guru).
can somebody please, please, please share this again. I would be very grateful.