Are we allowed to discuss the various releases of each album? For example, since we are still discussing Queen I, I'd like to know what the best-sounding vinyl release of this album is.
As far as I'm concerned, you can discuss anything related to Queen's discography. I'd say that qualifies.
The 2015 release of Queen, and Queen II are pretty good. Once you get to Sheer Heart Attack, the first UK pressing.
I have no idea who has what figures, but it's nice to see an older band is somewhat in the mix with the young-uns
I didn't either until I looked it up. At number 19, Queen's the only legacy act in the monthly top twenty.
Michael Jackson is the only other legacy act in the top 100. He's 46th. The Beatles are at 103 (they've gone up recently due to the White Album remix). Chili Peppers are 106th.
Hello, Yes, the show was meant for cinema release, as well a live album release, back in the day. Overdubs were completed back in the studio at the time, & Roy Thomas Baker plus Mike Stone recorded the event(s). I'd suggest it was never released at the time due to the change-of-management from Trident, plus the band were pressing-on with ANATO. A member of this forum Kriss Fredrikson has worked on a number of Queen films in recent years, in the sound department. Rainbow "74 is in part, some of the fruit of his labor ! He also suggested that there was a huge amount of "pitch correction" /( auto-tune ) placed on Freddie's voice, & sees this as another reason for its shelving way-back-when. I love the sound ! And if modern technology can do this so well, I look forward to many future releases from many artists ! Cheers, Gregster
I'm guessing then that the other show from a year later, the Hammersmith show 1975, had no changes to it, as it was broadcast live on the BBC at the time? Unless they changed it and corrected it on its way to Blu-ray in 2015?
Hello, 1st off, I've acquired a great many "unofficial" live shows / DVD's, & found Freddie's voice to be pretty acceptable, even at the end-of-a-tour...His pitch IMO is generally spot-on, but at times, he may have flattened-off a little, or had his voice break-up a little. Not big issues for me, but for a fully fledged reproduction that's going to be sold in today's market 40-years later, they try to get things as near 100% as possible, simply because the technology now-days allows you to do so... I think some issues the technicians have with the recordings, is the bleed from Freddie's voice, into the other microphones...And since each microphone represents a recording track, you can never get the sound in perfect tune, even if you could get Freddie's track 100%... I did see Kriss's name appear in the credits of "A Night at the Odeon", so I'd say that the whole show & every track received the same attention as the Rainbow shows. These are really only subtle adjustments / amendments ( IMO ), designed to make our smiles larger, by making the show a little closer to perfect. I love the way today's sound is being reproduced of older live recordings ! Ciao, Rastus
As far as live vocals go ... we are talking about a different age. We were only just starting to get the albums that weren't really live albums and the public got used to that, and somehow assumed that all singers always sing perfectly, and it's a nonsense. It got to the point where many of the popsters used backing tapes live because they were afraid of sounding off at any point. We have homogenised live music in a lot of ways, and taken the rawness out of it, taken the heart out of it, and left it as a bleeding shell on the musical floor of life. Nobody putting on a real rock show sings perfectly all the time, what a nonsense
Yes, It seems the market for TV personalities ( or anyone who could draw a crowd ) extended into the realm of musicians, & hence the result you're posting about (I hope)... In the 20's, 30's & 40's, we had companies that employed song-writers & then employed singers to sing the tunes, along with a band to sell records...It seems that marketing reached-out a little too far in modern times in many cases, & all for the fast-dollar. But back on-topic, you wouldn't find a better batch of musicians than within the band Queen, to stay at the top for such a long time in the 1970's, & then to bounce back to the top in the mid-1980's.
Doesn't the tape that it was recorded on deteriorate over age, or even during such a long recording process, like a whole gig, rather than a 4 minute track? Could out of tune vocals or guitar just indicate a tape fluctuation?
Hello, we're going a little off-topic here, but here's what I know... R1. Yes it does, but if it's well preserved / sealed, & hasn't seen too much playing-time, a tape can be preserved quite successfully, for decades. The length of tape matters little, but for the sake of deterioration, it's the start & finish of tapes that see the most wear & tear, namely due to the change in speeds at either tape-reel-end, & the fact that the tape rests in a much tighter arc. Starting & stopping tapes mid-way doesn't help either, as the "consistent" tension through the tape is lost. Most tapes that are brought-out of preservation for re-issues, are directly transferred into the digital world anyway. So they only have to play well one more time LOL ! R2. Yes that's possible too, but the whole band & instrumentation would carry the same fault.
Speaking of best sounding, I'm listening to Queen II. I'm not much of an audiophile. Is the guitar just a little bit deeper in the mix on that 2011 remaster?
But we've always had professional songwriters. Many country stars got their start as songwriters before their performing careers took off.
Hello, Of course this is true, though the "industry of professional song-writers" I'd guess has seen little ( if any ) expansion since Rock n' Roll came on the scene in the 1950's, meaning the that the man who plays the guitar & sings, often wrote the tune too. And a vast percentage of successful people on the Radio today, have done so ever since, just like Queen for instance. Record Companies are all about maximizing profits & sales, & no-doubt "manufactured" artists will always see a turn-over, as long as they can get the radio-air-play guaranteed. But this is an expensive method of production IMO. It's far easier to "sign-up" a band that has the drawing power of people at say music festivals ( think of say Woodstock 1969 ), & then record their own tunes, then market them, since the market already exists. Cheers, Gregster
Rock is dominated by writer/performers who do mostly their own stuff. And still some of the biggest and some of the best songs in rock have been cover versions. But we're currently in a pure pop era. Pop performers are often credited on their songs, but when a tune has five-six-seven listed authors; they might as well be a corporate committee. I already mentioned how many country stars started out a professional writers. And rock has seen its share fair of bands bringing in song doctors like Desmond Child and Jim Vallance to put them on the charts.
I said that I'm listening to Queen II; and I asked if the guitar is a little deeper in the mix on the 2011 remaster.
On previous discography threads (P-Funk, Isleys), I went too fast; posting reviews before anyone had a read and digest them. I'm listening to Queen II in my free time, but I've been busy with work and I want to give sufficient thought to that album before posting. Anyone else wants to offer their thoughts, don't feel like you have to wait on me.
I think the first two Queen albums have aged really well and I'm kind of glad that Mercury's introduction was actually on an album like Queen II because it really showed how much versatility and scope he could grasp as an artist at the time.
That's cool mate. Wasn't rushing you, i just didn't want to disrupt your flow and wasnt sure if you were introducing the album that way
Four of the five tracks on side one were written by Brian May. So I'd say that Queen II also how much versatility and scope May had as well.
