Frank
Politician
Posts: 754
Likes: 681
|
Post by Frank on Sept 7, 2020 15:23:02 GMT
Yes, good point. Freddie was still learning his craft when he was playing in other bands and following Smile around. Naturally, he drew on the same influences as those around him, and I would argue Smile themselves rubbed off on him from a composition standpoint. I'm curious if you or anyone else knows when Mad the Swine was composed (not recorded). It'd be interesting to know when he wrote the song in relation to when he wrote more grandiose songs like My Fairy King and Great King Rat. and...in some ways, Mad The Swine fits in with the Queen I vibe better than some of the songs on the album. Night Comes Down and Doin' Alright really sound more late-60s (arrangement/production-wise) than MTS. Well, we know Doin' Alright was a Smile song and therefore was a product of the late sixties. No surprise there. Yes, I suppose Mad The Swine could have fit in on the album. Queen were famous for being eclectic on their albums. So I don't quite understand the argument that it wouldn't fit in. From what I know about the history of the song, it was ultimately dropped because the boys couldn't agree with Roy Thomas Baker over the sound of the percussion. A damn shame if you ask me. But at least it gave fans a delightful surprise all those years later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2020 15:24:56 GMT
'Brighton Rock', 'We Are the Champions' and 'The Prophet's Song' were also 'rejected' from earlier albums, and none of those were bad songs at all, so the point about seeking stylistic cohesion (which is not the same as uniformity) is indeed a good one. Who knows? Maybe they thought they could revisit 'Mad the Swine' later but then never got around to?
I don't doubt for a second that Smile influenced Frederick, but it does not follow that everything Frederick penned was influenced by them. 'Mad the Swine' could've been a deliberate or subconscious homage to the likes of 'Doing All Right' and 'Polar Bear' but it could've just as easily been a spin on literally hundreds of other songs which could've influenced both Frederick and Brian/Roger/Timothy. Stuff by The Beatles, The Bee Gees, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Hendrix, the Stones, all the way to local pub bands they'd see and mingle with, plus jazz, blues, classical music, choir repertoire, etc.
As for when it was written, no idea, really: as the 'Night Comes Down' debate confirms, these things are delicate and seem to hit nerves so easily. Keep in mind that if, say, song A is simpler than song B, it doesn't necessarily mean song A was written earlier on; or if song C has more mature lyrics than song D it doesn't follow D was older (i.e. when the author was younger). There are enough exceptions to that seemingly logical 'rule' to know it's not a rule at all.
|
|
redgrin
Tatterdemalion
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
|
Post by redgrin on Sept 10, 2020 19:35:27 GMT
In my opinion I don't like the start very much, it's not until Freddie sings "Three feet tall so very small I'm no trouble" that it becomes a great track. I just don't like the link between "no sandals" and "ages past" it seems overdone. The drums and percussion is supposedly the reason why it wasn't on the album with the mix but another is that it's another religious song (Liar and Jesus are two of them on the album). Other than the start there's nothing else I can criticise about it. It's just a shame Queen didn't release it in anyway in 1973/74. But it did get played live at least once so they must've liked it enough to not just be forgotten about from recording it. I didn't notice that it's a religious song and I can't see it like that. The song actually never performed live in my opinion it's just a rumour that came from an unknown source that claimed it was played live at Mid-South coliseum, Memphis, USA on April 20th 1974. And Liar and Jesus aren't religious songs cause Freddie wasn't a religious person at all. Liar was a love song this is one of the reasons that it's released on Valentine 1974. Jesus was a song that Freddie wrote about changing the religion. Wasn't Liar in fact named Lover? Isn't it more about not giving up?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2020 21:28:12 GMT
'Liar', as far as those who were there have claimed, shares one line with 'Lover' and part of a riff. That's all. The remaining 99.99% of both songs could be radically different, for all we know.
|
|
CoolCat
Tatterdemalion
Posts: 32
Likes: 18
|
Post by CoolCat on Sept 12, 2020 10:08:08 GMT
and...in some ways, Mad The Swine fits in with the Queen I vibe better than some of the songs on the album. Night Comes Down and Doin' Alright really sound more late-60s (arrangement/production-wise) than MTS. Well, we know Doin' Alright was a Smile song and therefore was a product of the late sixties. No surprise there. Yes, I suppose Mad The Swine could have fit in on the album. Queen were famous for being eclectic on their albums. So I don't quite understand the argument that it wouldn't fit in. From what I know about the history of the song, it was ultimately dropped because the boys couldn't agree with Roy Thomas Baker over the sound of the percussion. A damn shame if you ask me. But at least it gave fans a delightful surprise all those years later. I don‘t understand it either. On almost every album there’s a song that doesn’t fit in with the others. Best example being ADATR. Somebody To Love and White Man being followed by Good Old-Fashioned Lover Boy doesn’t ruin the whole listening experience for me.
|
|
|
Post by peacelovingguy on Sept 14, 2020 9:48:33 GMT
I find it hard to believe the song was left off the album because Roger didn’t like the percussion. If that was a reason to leave a track off this album there’d be no album. Not to mention the obvious, that it’s a Freddie song, and something to notice about dear Fred, he ain’t no wallflower. The only reason this song isn’t on the album is surely because Freddie changed his mind, with or without the band’s stringent input. Also, if they were fighting with Roy Thomas Baker and thought his production of songs sucked so much that they had to leave tracks off the album, why work with him again and again on your next albums? The song is a curio, an interesting discovery many years later. They were right to leave it of an album they were hoping would be a hit and introduce them to the world. The sequencing on the album is very strong. It’s a bold statement by a band sort of simultaneously not quite as worthy of success as they think they are, but more talented than even they knew.
MTS wouldn’t’ve contributed anything. If they did indeed cut it out quite late in the day, it was because they heard the album five, ten, twenty times and decided it was better off without the track. This is not like the 80s albums when their song selections may not have been the right ones in hindsight.
|
|
BrƎИsꓘi
Administrator
They called it paradise, I don't know why...You call some place paradise, kiss it goodbye.
Posts: 3,738
Likes: 2,870
|
Post by BrƎИsꓘi on Sept 14, 2020 10:20:52 GMT
personally, i like MTS. the reasons for leaving it off the LP don't really stack up - as peacelovingguy said: if the reasons were percussion-based, then half the album disappears to the bin. also, the decision to omit MTS was hardly a commercial game-changer - the album wasn't a hit, didn't sell much - so in/out doesn't matter i think, realistically, the logical reason for MTS's non-inclusion was the God thing. Two Christianity-based songs on the same LP? Both written by the lead singer? there's a danger of a "label" being attached. I think the band made a decision over MTS vs Jesus - and chose the song they felt sounded best.
|
|
Lord Fickle
Global Moderator
Posts: 20,922
Likes: 7,495
|
Post by Lord Fickle on Sept 14, 2020 11:27:39 GMT
I wonder if it was simply to do with sequencing, and needing to keep LP and cassette sides to a similar length? MTS would have added about four minutes to side one if it had been included in the speculated position, between GKR and MFK, which would have imbalanced the album. If something had to go, maybe they just chose what they perceived to be the weakest track, or, as has been suggested, it was a toss up between MTS and Jesus?
|
|
oreno
Ploughman
Posts: 252
Likes: 317
|
Post by oreno on Sept 14, 2020 12:26:14 GMT
Where (genuinely) is the source that the song's omission was down to the percussion/drum sound?
(edit - I see I inadvertently said that, when I first referenced the fan club mag, my mistake.)
The fan club mag staes they were unhappy with the "final mix" (and does not mention percussion). Just as they were with KYA, and in theory TNCD, which for whatever reason they felt unable to replicate at Trident. (That, or RTB/the band decided that was the only De Lane Lea recording that was up to scratch for commercial release).
They weren't happy with the way the track was sounding/feeling, and I guess it was felt not significant enough to re-record or spend yet more studio time on. We fans think of Queen songs as these precious atrefacts but at the time they were a newish group and were on a creative roll. Freddie was already writing, or about to write, the likes of Seven Seas of Rhye, Ogre Battle. He (perhaps more than Brian, ref KYA) was someone who was not interested in spending time going over old ground, but more interested in what they could do next.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2020 12:40:22 GMT
I find it hard to believe the song was left off the album because Roger didn’t like the percussion. Not Roger: the band. Since we're all speculating here, let's say Roger didn't like the percussion on 'Son and Daughter', but Brian, John and Frederick did, he'd be outvoted; let's say Frederick didn't like the guitar sound on 'Jesus', but Brian, John and Roger did, he'd be outvoted; let's say for 'Mad the Swine' three of them, or perhaps all of them, were displeased with the percussion, it's taken out. Also, if they were fighting with Roy Thomas Baker and thought his production of songs sucked so much that they had to leave tracks off the album, why work with him again and again on your next albums? Because Roy was the deputy producer and John Anthony was the chief one. As far as the sources we've got imply, the thing's that they felt they could somewhat compromise with Roy Baker and not with John Anthony, and that Robin Cable was considered as a producer for the second album; ultimately, they decided to get rid of John Anthony and keep Roy Baker with the hope that he'd agree to the approach they wanted and, apparently, it worked since their partnership was far more successful on Queen II, Sheer Heart Attack and A Night at the Opera. Jazz is another story... i think, realistically, the logical reason for MTS's non-inclusion was the God thing. Two Christianity-based songs on the same LP? Both written by the lead singer? there's a danger of a "label" being attached. I think the band made a decision over MTS vs Jesus - and chose the song they felt sounded best. Nice hypothesis, but nothing to back it up. Where (genuinely) is the source that the song's omission was down to the percussion/drum sound? Fan Club magazine issued around the time it was released as a B-Side and/or for the Hollywood Records remasters. They weren't happy with the way the track was sounding/feeling, and I guess it was felt not significant enough to re-record or spend yet more studio time on. Or there was no budget for that, so it was either out as it was or not at all and they picked the latter, whereas on 'Keep Yourself Alive' they picked the former. Freddie was already writing, or about to write, the likes of Seven Seas of Rhye, Ogre Battle. He (perhaps more than Brian, ref KYA) was someone who was not interested in spending time going over old ground, but more interested in what they could do next. Perhaps, and that'd explain why they didn't record 'Stone Cold Crazy' either. Both Brian and Frederick admitted it was deliberate: either the song wasn't deemed 'good enough' at the time or they felt it didn't fit; by the third album, they'd changed their minds.
|
|
oreno
Ploughman
Posts: 252
Likes: 317
|
Post by oreno on Sept 14, 2020 16:25:19 GMT
There's still no specific mention of the drum/percussion sound in that fan club mag though, only the "final mix".. here's what the mag said - [In 1973]"...the band did not approve of the way Roy Thomas Baker.. had done the final mix..." [In 1991] "It was taken out to Switzerland. There it was 'tweaked' a little, changed minutely and plonked on the b-side of 'Headlong"'s long format releases". (Summer 1991) drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Pt0qllIyIlajpeTOVV0DGgsXnyojlb9XFar as I can see the claim originated with John S Stuart. Digging back through QZ, although his claim/account of MTS being edited (and originally sitting between GKR/MFK) has been strongly contradicted by people who (claim to) have spoken to David Richards and Kevin Metcalfe - the story seems to be that it was a remix from the multitracks, which would (a) mean there would be no need to edit the track, but also (b) would indeed enable the drums to be remixed (rather than the whole track simply EQ'd/ remastered). So perhaps the drums thing is correct, even if John's other claims weren't, though there's still no way yet of confirming either way. (I'll leave the subject of vocal overdubs aside). There's great stuff on QZ, shame it's become such a wretched hive of bots and trollery.
|
|
BrƎИsꓘi
Administrator
They called it paradise, I don't know why...You call some place paradise, kiss it goodbye.
Posts: 3,738
Likes: 2,870
|
Post by BrƎИsꓘi on Sept 14, 2020 16:41:15 GMT
There's still no specific mention of the drum/percussion sound in that fan club mag though, only the "final mix".. here's what the mag said - [In 1973]"...the band did not approve of the way Roy Thomas Baker.. had done the final mix..." Far as I can see the claim originated with John S Stuart. Digging back through QZ, although his claim/account of MTS being edited (and originally sitting between GKR/MFK) has been strongly contradicted by people who (claim to) have spoken to David Richards and Kevin Metcalfe - well, regardless of whether JSS or others are correct. i'd say that "speaking to David Richards" does not actually validate one argument or the other. how can it? the only people who know the facts of decisions regarding MTS are those present at the time. David Richards was not - so any account he gave would be hearsay - nothing more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2020 17:07:29 GMT
Wow, I'd clearly misremembered then (the 1991 claim, that is). I stand corrected. Thank you.
It goes to show that if a lie is repeated enough times people end up believing it, even if it was unsourced or inaccurate to begin with.
As for David Richards: he mixed the 1991 version, though, so even if he wasn't a live witness to whatever took place in 1972, he could've been a live witness to Frederick (or anyone else, for that matter) telling him why it'd been taken off the album. Of course, then we'd enter another territory, which is broken telephone...
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on Sept 22, 2020 19:46:32 GMT
'Brighton Rock', 'We Are the Champions' and 'The Prophet's Song' were also 'rejected' from earlier albums, and none of those were bad songs at all, so the point about seeking stylistic cohesion (which is not the same as uniformity) is indeed a good one. Although we should still be sure not to use this argument to defend a lot of their reject tracks from the '80s. They were rejected because they were bad, full stop.
Mad The Swine likely didn't make the cut for the first album because it simply wasn't as good as the other tracks. And if it was, they had enough songs with a religious tinge - one of them had to go. If it was between MTS, Jesus, and Great King Rat, it's obvious which of the bunch was getting the axe.
|
|