Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > Wembley has NOT be remixed!

forum rss feed
Author

Bad Seed user not visiting Queenzone.com
Bad Seed
Bohemian: 520 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 11, 02:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I try not to moan too much about products, but I'm honestly lost for words about this

http://www.brianmay.com/experts/experts.html

They have gone to the bother of remixing the bonus footage, but just left the main release as its been for 20 years! This will also mean no proper 5.1 again. Unbelievable!

Rick user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4796 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 11, 05:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

A huge letdown.

Thanks QP for misinforming us!


John: "It's the one thing I wish I could do - sing."

Queenman!! user not visiting Queenzone.com
Queenman!!
Bohemian: 931 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 11, 05:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Well... are these things new from QP?

I always thought the best result is to take the orginal mastertapes and transfer them with the technology of 2011; instead of using a copy from 1991


You made us laugh, you made us cry, you made us feel like we could fly!
GinjaNinja user is on Queenzone.com
GinjaNinja
Bohemian: 654 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 11, 06:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Well that's crap. I can't see any point in up-mixing it to 5.1, just a waste of valuable disc space that could be used to increase the bitrate of the video.

Another half hearted effort. The whole thing really should have had a re-mix.


Property Of Queen Productions...
cmsdrums user not visiting Queenzone.com
cmsdrums
Deity: 3039 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 11, 06:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Shocking really - I was looking forward to a brand new, decent sounding, mix.

The attitude is summed up by their response to me pointing out that in the restoration of the Jealousy kick drum, they have missed one of the beats - their reply is;

 "How could you possibly be concerned about something so trivial. . . I don't care."

Bad Seed user not visiting Queenzone.com
Bad Seed
Bohemian: 520 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 11, 10:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

cmsdrums wrote: Shocking really - I was looking forward to a brand new, decent sounding, mix.

The attitude is summed up by their response to me pointing out that in the restoration of the Jealousy kick drum, they have missed one of the beats - their reply is;

 "How could you possibly be concerned about something so trivial. . . I don't care."

================================

I was quite shocked when I first read that this morning. At least the QPL employee was decent enough to sign his name. A S Pokesman.

rhyeking user not visiting Queenzone.com
rhyeking
Royalty: 1566 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 11, 10:48 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Perhaps I'm missing the point, but Live At Wembley '86 was originally released in 1992. That was its debut and there were no other releases of that concert in full on CD before that date (though some tracks appeared on Live Magic...and "Tutti Frutti" had a bit of an edit...but basically, it was whole of Saturday's concert). That was the original master stereo mix for the live album, done by Brian Malouf.

Forgive me for making the comparison, but wouldn't everyone be totally losing their shit if the QPL completely remixed one of the studio albums? Not remastered, mind you, *remixed*...as in from the original multitracks. Yet we're complaining that they did not do this with Wembley?

Am I understanding this right?

We want studio album stereo masters left alone. Looking at all the hullabaloo around the "restored" bass drum on the "Jealousy" album master, that people say: "leave the album masters as they were originally!" this seems to be the case.

However, *live* albums are required to be completely remixed from scratch after 20 years? They're using the original album stereo master and we're complaining?

Are studio album masters somehow more sacred than live album masters?

I just want to get where people are coming from here, I'm not saying anyone is wrong.

Rick user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4796 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 11, 11:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

rhyeking wrote: Perhaps I'm missing the point, but Live At Wembley '86 was originally released in 1992. That was its debut and there were no other releases of that concert in full on CD before that date (though some tracks appeared on Live Magic...and "Tutti Frutti" had a bit of an edit...but basically, it was whole of Saturday's concert). That was the original master stereo mix for the live album, done by Brian Malouf.

Forgive me for making the comparison, but wouldn't everyone be totally losing their shit if the QPL completely remixed one of the studio albums? Not remastered, mind you, *remixed*...as in from the original multitracks. Yet we're complaining that they did not do this with Wembley?

Am I understanding this right?

We want studio album stereo masters left alone. Looking at all the hullabaloo around the "restored" bass drum on the "Jealousy" album master, that people say: "leave the album masters as they were originally!" this seems to be the case.

However, *live* albums are required to be completely remixed from scratch after 20 years? They're using the original album stereo master and we're complaining?

Are studio album masters somehow more sacred than live album masters?

I just want to get where people are coming from here, I'm not saying anyone is wrong.
====

Face it. The original mix of Wembley is pretty poor.


John: "It's the one thing I wish I could do - sing."

rhyeking user not visiting Queenzone.com
rhyeking
Royalty: 1566 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 11, 11:44 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

That's beside my question. It's the original mix, should it not be respected as such?

Jazz has been argued against for the quality of the original mix AND the inclusion of a "restored" bass drum, yet we're campaigning for the complete overhaul of Wembley, when people would complain that doing the same to Jazz would be disrespectful of the original, the "the way it was when it came out" philosophy.

Do we hold live albums to a different standard than studio albums? If so, why?

cmsdrums user not visiting Queenzone.com
cmsdrums
Deity: 3039 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 11, 12:11 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Well bizarrely the experts response to me has been removed from Brian's site already - very odd. On the question of should the live albums be remixed or not, I can see the argument put forward in preserving the original mix, but then how far do we take the argument, ie should they not be remastered either? My view is that the studio albums are different beasts, and that live albums should be remixed where there are obvious deficiencies in the original mixes, such as Wembley and MK. I can't really eloquently back my view up, but that's how I feel.

rhyeking user not visiting Queenzone.com
rhyeking
Royalty: 1566 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 11, 13:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Yes, it could be argued that remastering is still altering the original mix in a way, but I think most people agree that the fundamental difference between remixing and remastering is cosmetic.

Remastering generally is a clean up, using tools not previously available (such as for an album made 30 or 40 years ago) to get rid of noise and balance the equalization of the original mix. I equate this this to restoring artwork, cleaning the grime off. It was only there in the beginning because the limits of the technology prevented its removal.

Remixing, such as taking the original master tracks of each instrument and changing the relative levels ("less guitar, more bass, etc.") IS a change at the most basic level of the music. Using the art analogy, it's like altering the colours of a painting, even slightly ("tone down that yellow, punch up the blues and greens, make that off-white greyer...").

Back to my first post, I'm not saying either position on remixing a live album (do it or don't do it) is wrong, I'm curious about the reasoning behind and how we justify the different standard.

GinjaNinja user is on Queenzone.com
GinjaNinja
Bohemian: 654 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 11, 14:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Let's face it, the quality of some live recordings (even on the master) is poor. These need all the help they can get to sound spick and span.

Studio albums on the other hand, have ideal recording conditions, and they can re-do a take if something goes wrong. Just compare the sound of Live Killers to The Game.

We can't compare something like Queen II to Live At Wembley. Queen II has many overdubs, harmonies and things bouncing from ear to ear. It is true that it would be a completely different experience if it was re-mixed (though I wouldn't object to new mixes of the albums, as long as the originals were also still available) whereas there aren't THAT many things going on to be mixed differently in a live album, it just needs to sound as clear and as crisp as possible.


Property Of Queen Productions...
inu-liger user not visiting Queenzone.com
inu-liger
Deity: 13057 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 11, 15:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

More upmixed garbage??

FAIL

Bad Seed user not visiting Queenzone.com
Bad Seed
Bohemian: 520 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 11, 15:52 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I agree with GinjaNinja. Remixing a studio album is a huge task, not only that, that is how Queen sounded in whichever particular year. The band, producer, engineer's etc decided in 1978 that's how Jazz was to sound, and I think it should stay that way.

I just think a studio album is a document of a particular time, and should maybe be left alone. A live recording is more about the performance, and if the mix can be made better, then why not. 

Live album's are often remixed by artists, and if it make's the listening a more enjoyable experience then I'm all for it. And because of that weird, and quite frankly awful guitar tone, Wembley would benefit enormously.

Wiley user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1704 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 11, 16:48 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

An album mix is apparently perceived as the original and definitive vision of how it is supposed to sound. A live album is more like an 'experience', a moment captured in time and documented for posterity... even if it's remixed or dubbed (?).

In short... erm... there is a double standard.

Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6327 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 11, 17:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

A valid double standard, in my book.

Live albums and studio albums are different. Different 'rules' apply to each.


John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
99jaystang user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 154 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 11, 19:06 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

can't get the link to work on Brian's site (Expert) . clicked on the whats new tab, but it  sends me to January post.

Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6327 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 11, 20:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Maybe they realised how rude that message was and how it affected QPL's public image.


John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
rhyeking user not visiting Queenzone.com
rhyeking
Royalty: 1566 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 11, 21:14 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The link on the OP still works.

If that happens to vanish, here's the reply from JSS (no, not that JSS, the other JSS):

**Justin Shirley Smith replied:

Hi António

Good point - I agree - the press release is a little ambiguous in this regard so I am glad of the opportunity to attempt to make it clear. Josh and I have made a new stereo mix of the Friday concert.For the Saturday concert we have used the familiar stereo mix, done in 1991 by Brian Malouf.  This mix was intended for CD use only at the time so there was no sync.  For the 2003 DVD edition of this show we only had access to the 1991 CD master so Kris synchronised it with the picture.  Since that time we have found the original 1991 analogue half-inch stereo mix tapes in LA, so we've had those transferred at high resolution, speed-stabilised and synchronised by Plangent Processes for this edition.Both night's stereo audio have been digitally restored (cleaned up) by Kris, and then mastered and up-mixed by Tim Young.Hope that helps.

Best wishes
Justin
***

MERQRY user not visiting Queenzone.com
MERQRY
Bohemian: 746 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 11, 21:14 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sebastian wrote: Maybe they realised how rude that message was and how it affected QPL's public image.
-------------
Mmmm i can see the message, so they didn`t realised...


"I will destroy any man who dares abuse my trust" Freddie Mercury