Forums > Queen - General Discussion > Mad the Swine- why not on Queen 1?

forum rss feed
Author

Amazon user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 996 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Jun 09, 16:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I recently disvovered Mad the Swine on youtube. A great song. On queenpedia, it says that the song didn't feature on the first album over a disagreement with Roy Thomas Baker concerning the drum sound and percussion. Could someone go into greater detail as to why it failed to make the album? Thanks.


steven 35638 user not visiting Queenzone.com
Band ten hut!
steven 35638
Deity: 2132 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Jun 09, 17:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Since the song is a first person account of Jesus as he saves his followers, it has been speculated that its overly religious tones may have been a factor in its exclusion.  Of course, as you mentioned, the disagreement between Roger, Freddie, and Roy Thomas Baker over the percussion sound is certainly a more realistic reason for the exclusion.  That's about as much as I know.  Hopefully someone will enlighten us!


"Fuck today, it's tomorrow." - Freddie Mercury
Penetration_Guru user not visiting Queenzone.com
Penetration_Guru
Deity: 11011 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Jun 09, 18:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Amazon wrote:

On queenpedia, it says that the song didn't feature on the first album over a disagreement with Roy Thomas Baker concerning the drum sound and percussion. Could someone go into greater detail as to why it failed to make the album? Thanks.

Certainly.  The band had a disagreement with the producer (whose name was Roy Thomas Baker) concerning the production of the track, specifically the drum and/or percussion sounds.

Does this enlighten you sufficiently?







mechaman89 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 61 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Jun 09, 03:07 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Steven wrote:

Since the song is a first person account of Jesus as he saves his followers, it has been speculated that its overly religious tones may have been a factor in its exclusion.  Of course, as you mentioned, the disagreement between Roger, Freddie, and Roy Thomas Baker over the percussion sound is certainly a more realistic reason for the exclusion.  That's about as much as I know.  Hopefully someone will enlighten us!





Maybe they didn't want two "religious"songs on the album?Personally,i think Mad the Swine is the better of the two.



"get get develop"
i-Fred user not visiting Queenzone.com
i-Fred
Bohemian: 403 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Jun 09, 04:54 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

coz its shit



...
mike hunt user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2756 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Jun 09, 05:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

mad the swine is a good song, but jesus was the better of the 2.  i don't think it would have fit into the album.

August R. user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 561 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Jun 09, 08:32 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I've heard the drum sound disagreement explanaton as well, but come to think of it, Liar has religious tones as well. 3 religious songs would definately have been too much. They would have sounded like Led Zeppelin-meets-Jesus Christ Superstar if they had put yet another religious song onto the first album.




Claudio_CQI user not visiting Queenzone.com
Oh yes, we'll keep on tryin'..
Claudio_CQI
Bohemian: 108 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Jun 09, 10:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

we all know the official reason related to the poor production of drums in Mad. But, personally, I think a great song as March of the Black Queen (from the second album) has even worst drums sound (unfortunately). So I really don't know the true reason of this exclusion.
Stay right
Cla


bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12697 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 14 Jun 09, 17:45 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



August R. wrote:

They would have sounded like Led Zeppelin-meets-Jesus Christ Superstar if they had put yet another religious song onto the first album








... I would've bought that.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
Bigfish user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 430 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Jun 09, 05:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I have it on the 12inch of HEADLONG if I remember correctly. I think it was really just down to quality. It´s a little repetitive and meandering for my ears. I don´t think it stands up too well and yes I believe JESUS is a little better. Regardless of technical arguments if it had been good enough I think it would have made it on there.


Big Fish
liam user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 594 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Jun 09, 11:26 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

i think its a great song that should have definetly been on the album instead of Jesus.
Also, some of the songs from Queen 2 have a much worse drum sound and are nearly inaudible in a number of spots ie. father to son and march of the black queen.


Go, Go, Go, little queenie!!
Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 15 Jun 09, 11:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The record company didn't like the backwards Satanic messages that were on the track.

Instead, they went with Doin' Alright.   When you play it backwards you can clearly hear
"Buy Queen II".

I have Queen II.  Scary.