QueenZone discussion #1308122

Togg wrote: Personally I would say he had to sing this night after night, which would drive you mad particularly as the song was written years before. I see no reason why he wouldnt experment for his own amusment just to shake things up a little, if he liked something it would get used again. Yes he oversang songs, he wasn't perfect, plus again why not it's live not just a copy of the studio track. having played in a band for 30+ years I can say with certainty you just have to change things up a little, to stay the same is to die...it's boring as hell. Fred was known to have a low boredom threshhold so i think this is simply trying to make the same song more interesting for the singer and stop him from falling asleep while performing it.

Daniel Nester wrote: So, when he talk-sings 'caviar cigarettes' in Hartford, he's hitting *higher* notes than on record? OK.

Daniel Nester wrote: So what's the purpose of this "debate"? You say you have audio and it backs up your explanation and only your explanation. I hear these versions and they don't sound oversung--a malleable definition if they're ever was one. I am saying these versions are *not* obnoxious. "Your" audio does not *prove* this. For me. For you, it does. God bless. But now that you brought up red herring, a term used in rhetoric, and seem to think I'm using some rhetorical tricks to prove my point, here some of the following fallacies you've committed, just in these few responses: Appeal to motive. We call is the intentional fallacy in my business(literature). This is when the interpreter actually presents him or herself as going inside the artist's (i.e., Freddie's) mind, and saying how he *meant* or intended to sing (i.e., Freddie is trying be more macho; or, to a lesser degree obnoxious) Cherry-picking. Using the actual notes, the fact of them, as back up for your own subjective interpretation. Circular Logic. It's obnoxious because it's obnoxious. "Is there a reason for the obnoxious renditions of the song?" is another version of "When did you stop beating your wife?" The premise is part of your conclusion. And a red herring can be a red herring even if you start off your "debate" with these terms. It assumes everyone else will agree with those interpretations, the debater or reader will then be distracted, and then we all are supposed to feel free to move on to the next topic, which is, Why do we think this is so? So, besides my disagreement with you and a couple others that he is in fact oversinging here -- which I think you're conflating with simply singing higher notes -- you're using that as your supporting argument for many other interpretations, which I also feel are off the mark. Me, I guess I'm committing the fallacy of argumentum ad nauseum. I'm going on way toooo long. I don't think you're, like, morally wrong or whatever (that would be a straw man), maybe just wrong-headed in your qualitative, aesthetic assessment of the performance. Happily, aesthetic assessment can't be decided upon in a final way; ask Emmanuel Kant. These are not mathematical proofs; piling up reasons that support a single argument doesn't ispo facto mean anyone is right about these things. It's an ongoing conversation. The way these discussions/debates are framed here and in other places, to me,  not all not terribly useful. Besides the raw data/trainspotting quality of transcribing down which notes he hits at different points, which I find is pretty fascinating. I applaud you for that. It's your interpretations and support of them I find kind of wrong-headed and sometimes grating, even more than Roger's backup singing on the Jazz tour.

MERQRY wrote: I don't remember if he oversang Killer Queen in argentina 81... anyway this kind of post (about what notes hits freddie or the way he sang a song) are too much "structuralist" to me...

Togg wrote: Personally I would say he had to sing this night after night, which would drive you mad particularly as the song was written years before. I see no reason why he wouldnt experment for his own amusment just to shake things up a little, if he liked something it would get used again.

The Real Wizard wrote:

Togg wrote: Personally I would say he had to sing this night after night, which would drive you mad particularly as the song was written years before. I see no reason why he wouldnt experment for his own amusment just to shake things up a little, if he liked something it would get used again.

^ this.

The Real Wizard wrote:

Togg wrote: Personally I would say he had to sing this night after night, which would drive you mad particularly as the song was written years before. I see no reason why he wouldnt experment for his own amusment just to shake things up a little, if he liked something it would get used again.

^ this.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Around this time (1979-1980) Freddie started using large quantities of cocaine and alcohol, both of which affect the voice. Also, I believe he was already smoking in '80, which is another factor. All in all, I think Freddie was in pretty bad shape, vocally, on the The Game-tour, which probably explains this Killer Queen-thing too.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote:

Togg wrote: Personally I would say he had to sing this night after night, which would drive you mad particularly as the song was written years before. I see no reason why he wouldnt experment for his own amusment just to shake things up a little, if he liked something it would get used again.

^ this.

Disagree. This argument requires quite a lot of assumptions. Many songs were performed pretty much every night, then why is Killer Queen the only one that gets 'messed up' this way? Sure, there are glitches on WATC sometimes, but nothing like this. Also, it would require the assumption that Freddie / the band got bored with older songs - then why did they re-introduce so many during the tour for The Works? They *chose* to include older songs like Seven Seas of Rhye, Liar, Killer Queen, etc., there was never any requirement. No audience would have grumbled overly much if Killer Queen were dropped from the set in 1980. I think voice issues are a more likely candidate, as Killer Queen is a song with quite a number of vocal snags that Freddie could pull off in 1974/75, but not so well in 1980/81.

Daniel Nester wrote: Again, there is no standard definition of oversung or oversinging, let alone "technically oversinging." And by all the definitions available to us --melisma, adding decorations are some -- making an extra effort to add emotional content comes closest. It's just that Freddie isn't adding the usual or intended (for the song) extra emotional content.  Whereas in a ballad, for example an Aguilera or Carey might be doing runs, melisma, all to pile on the emotion, and bathetically so, Freddie add his to present a different interpretation entirely, and that's where these terms "obnoxious" and "macho" come out. I definitely disagree with the idea that he's being "obnoxious," but you might be onto something with "macho." So, maybe chest-singing might work?  You seem to have a Mercury-specific definition of oversung and I would much prefer that: Mr. Bad Guy-ing. I'm really not kidding!  It definitely is a different persona he's putting across in these later tours.  I love all things Queen circa Game and Hot Space, so I guess that's why I'm responding in this way.  Works and Magic Tour stuff I can't get worked up about, for example. Maybe it's because I was a teenager then or something.  I dunno. I have to say, you're rocking out putting up these bootlegs online. You're a minor god in my book.