| LadyMoonshineDown 27.01.2005 20:35 |
Ok, so inside the record cover of ANATO, or on the CD sleeve, it says right under the lyrics for Good Company that there was a guitar jazz band by Brian. However.... When I was playing that song for my friend, and told him it was all guitar, he didn't believe me. Now....am I wrong? Or were all those weird, quirky noises actually from the guitar? I thought they were.....I'm pretty sure they are. Cheers |
| Boy Thomas Raker 27.01.2005 20:43 |
Yes, apart from the ukelele, it's all Brian. I recall seeing an article with Brian where he said it was all a matter of engineering as opposed to today where you could probably dial up a trombone or clarinet sound on a processor or pedal. It's sad, but whenever the guitar mags have their "greatest guitar albums", ANATO isn't mentioned. I can't think of an album where the guitar was taken in such a unique direction by a player. Good Company, though little known outside of early Queen fans, is every bit as groundbreaking as Bohemian Rhapsody. |
| LadyMoonshineDown 27.01.2005 20:54 |
BHM 0271 wrote: Yes, apart from the ukelele, it's all Brian. I recall seeing an article with Brian where he said it was all a matter of engineering as opposed to today where you could probably dial up a trombone or clarinet sound on a processor or pedal. It's sad, but whenever the guitar mags have their "greatest guitar albums", ANATO isn't mentioned. I can't think of an album where the guitar was taken in such a unique direction by a player. Good Company, though little known outside of early Queen fans, is every bit as groundbreaking as Bohemian Rhapsody.I totally agree with you. We all know that Hendrix is praised with his unique sounds from his guitar. But think about a lot of songs by Queen (mainly early/70's Queen) and what noises come from that. It is crazy, and takes talent to say the least; the very least. *Sigh* The songs unheard by most of the so called "music-conscious" people (by Queen) are the ones that deserve the most praise. Cheers |
| Fireplace 27.01.2005 21:18 |
BHM 0271 wrote: Yes, apart from the ukelele, it's all Brian.So who played ukelele? Spike Edney? |
| Boy Thomas Raker 27.01.2005 22:05 |
Brian played ukelele. I meant that apart from the ukelele, the sounds were all from his guitar. |
| Sebastian 27.01.2005 22:14 |
There are bass and drum in there as well you know. > It is crazy, and takes talent to say the least Imho there's no such thing as "talent". It's not that Brian got his ideas from air or God sent him the ability to play guitar like that. He made himself, the credit is to his own effort. And of course, in this case, to the producer and engineer without whom it couldn't have been possible. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 27.01.2005 23:01 |
Yes there are bass and drums Sebastian, I gave people credit for figuring out those sounds weren't made by Brian's guitar though. |
| Lester Burnham 27.01.2005 23:03 |
You know, he sang, too. I'm sure his guitar didn't do that. Sorry, just really poking fun at the pedantics here, not you. But I'm still amazed that Brian hasn't gotten more credit than he ever has for his guitar orchestrations; amazing that Keith Richards can get so much plaudits for writing three notes for '(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction', but Brian's work on the early Queen albums, where he was particularly creative, goes unnoticed. |
| Farlander 27.01.2005 23:40 |
Sebastian wrote: Imho there's no such thing as "talent". It's not that Brian got his ideas from air or God sent him the ability to play guitar like that. He made himself, the credit is to his own effort. And of course, in this case, to the producer and engineer without whom it couldn't have been possible.Of course there's such a thing as talent. Not every person has the same potential as everyone else in everything. It takes work to develop the talent, certainly, but many people could practice 8 hours a day for a twenty years and still never be able to play anywhere near as well as somebody like Brian. |
| mike hunt 28.01.2005 00:34 |
finally a few people on this site know what the hell their talking about, good company is a great song. |
| Sebastian 28.01.2005 01:36 |
> Of course there's such a thing as talent. Not every person has the same potential as everyone else in everything. It takes work to develop the talent, certainly, but many people could practice 8 hours a day for a twenty years and still never be able to play anywhere near as well as somebody like Brian. I disagree, but I also agree to disagree. I just give credit to Brian for the fact his expertise is owed entirely to him, not to any "gratuitious" pre-disposition. |
| iGSM 28.01.2005 01:38 |
There's a couple of times when you can guess that it's a guitar i.e. the muted trumpets sound too sweet and the trombones are a little damp but it's mind bogglingly amazing. My favouritest song on ANATO. |
| trustno1 28.01.2005 07:24 |
Sebastian wrote: > Of course there's such a thing as talent. Not every person has the same potential as everyone else in everything. It takes work to develop the talent, certainly, but many people could practice 8 hours a day for a twenty years and still never be able to play anywhere near as well as somebody like Brian. I disagree, but I also agree to disagree. I just give credit to Brian for the fact his expertise is owed entirely to him, not to any "gratuitious" pre-disposition.Clearly, a lot of practise and thought went into Good Company, for example, but there has to be some 'pre-disposition' there so that all the accumulated knowledge and practise result in something musical. Good Company was the result of both talent and study. Anyone can learn anything if they really want to, but to use the knowledge creatively is what the talent part is about. |
| Koolkikiland 28.01.2005 08:33 |
Lester Burnham wrote: Amazing that Keith Richards can get so much plaudits for writing three notes for '(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction', but Brian's work on the early Queen albums, where he was particularly creative, goes unnoticed.I could NOT agree more. That is so true its not even funny. |
| Freddie-B 28.01.2005 09:51 |
Brilliant guitar work, the man's a genius. |
| Farlander 28.01.2005 10:49 |
Sebastian wrote: > I disagree, but I also agree to disagree. I just give credit to Brian for the fact his expertise is owed entirely to him, not to any "gratuitious" pre-disposition.So you're saying the only people who play guitar worse than Brian are people who have practiced less than he? |
| Sebastian 28.01.2005 11:06 |
Farlander wrote:Well, yes and no. There are lot of factors apart from practice. For example, it's not about how many hours you spent a day, but how you use them. For instance, the fact Brian played piano as well probably helped him to have a more "orchestral" idea and applied it to guitar. When he started playing guitar he already played two other instruments so he wasn't a "newer" in terms of, for instance, how the chords are named and stuff. His own concentration is something that affects everything he learns (cooking, driving, etc), his coordination, etc. A lot of factors, but I don't believe in talent (explained as a God-given gift to do something well "just because"). But as I said I agree to disagreeSebastian wrote: > I disagree, but I also agree to disagree. I just give credit to Brian for the fact his expertise is owed entirely to him, not to any "gratuitious" pre-disposition.So you're saying the only people who play guitar worse than Brian are people who have practiced less than he? |
| Farlander 28.01.2005 11:45 |
Just out of curiosity, how do you explain Mozart, for example, who was able to perform keyboard works he heard his sister playing without ever having studied or practiced at all? Or those rare children who simply understand math that most math professors will never understand without ever having studied it? Surely talent can be thought of in the same way as intelligence - a part of an individual's nature. It is not there "just because" or because God performed some special miracle, but it is an attribute of the individual, perhaps with a genetic component, that is outside of environment or study. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 28.01.2005 12:07 |
Interesting theory of Sebastian's, but I believe in pre-disposed "talent." How do you explain a kid like Tiger Woods? Superior hand-eye coordination from an early age. It's 'there' from birth. Brian obviously had an amazing analytical mind early on (figuring out parts of Buddy Holly records), and that's a big part of his talent as an arranger. How would he practice that? |
| The Real Wizard 28.01.2005 12:22 |
Sebastian wrote: Imho there's no such thing as "talent". It's not that Brian got his ideas from air or God sent him the ability to play guitar like that. He made himself, the credit is to his own effort. And of course, in this case, to the producer and engineer without whom it couldn't have been possible.Of course, much of our abilities in life are learned, but I honestly think people have natural instincts for certain things better than others. But perhaps it's due to aspects of early upbringing and environment... |
| billyk72 28.01.2005 12:44 |
AHHH...Brian's "Guitar Orchestration". All guitar sounds overdubbed - and sometimes he uses that delay function (a la "Brighton Rock" solo). |
| Koolkikiland 28.01.2005 14:57 |
but I don't believe in talent (explained as a God-given gift to do something well "just because").
If I understand correctly, your point is to take out the God factor associated with anything regarding special abilities. In other words, anything great about Brian was brought about entirely through means of his own effort and concentration. Would that include bringing himself into existence? |
| Sebastian 28.01.2005 20:25 |
> Would that include bringing himself into existence? Again, yes and no. What I think is that everybody's got the same potential for anything. Something different is the fact that everybody's brain works a different way, and everybody's personality affects that as well. For instance, a person with good concentration would be a wonderful chef, or a wonderful pianist, or a wonderful writer imo, whatever they choose, they'd do it, more than a person without good concentration, even if they both practice equal. Matter of taste more than "god-given pre-disposition" Now, there are some minimal physic factors (e.g. the length of the fingers and their flexibility, something rather anatomical) but imo they don'T affect more than 1%. Of course I don't just mean concentration, also dedication, etc. As I said, I don't believe in talent, but that's just an opinion. As much as it hasn't ever scientifically proved to exist. I can't give credit 100% to Brian (or anyone) for what they achieve, of course. Perhaps his mom made him invent short stories as a kid and that's why he developed such creativity from such an early age, etc. > how do you explain Mozart, for example, who was able to perform keyboard works he heard his sister playing without ever having studied or practiced at all? Mozart is considered a giften kid. Then when he turned 14 he wasn't anymore. Now he was a gifted teenager. Now, that's something else.. imHo there's no such thing as a "genius" either. Wolfgang Amadeus probably had his brain working in a different way, like those "weird children" you mention, who somehow can paint a landscape exactly the same just looking at it once during a minute, etc, etc. Apparently they've got some part of the brain "blocked" and they don't focus in one detail, instead they see/hear it all. Why did he end up that way? I dunno, thousands of possible factors again. Everything makes a difference, from the food you eat to the nurse rhymes you listen. > How do you explain a kid like Tiger Woods? Superior hand-eye coordination from an early age. Now that part is, as I said, probably (for minimal extent though) affected by anatomical factors imo. I don't know, some chromosome of him worked differently or something... but just likewise, imo he could have developed that from his childhood in some sort of way we'll never know. Perhaps he shuffled cards or anything ... just, again, I agree to disagree. I've got my own way of thinking about that and I don't mean to make anyone change their mind, as well as I won't change mine. > Brian obviously had an amazing analytical mind early on (figuring out parts of Buddy Holly records), and that's a big part of his talent as an arranger. How would he practice that? Like you said, figuring out parts of the records. Practice makes the master. Kids can learn anything. If he started doing it early on, then it'd be easy for him to keep doing it and eventually he could, for instance, listen to a choir and make a transcription or whatever. But it does have a logical explanation and is ... well, that. TTFN |
| Farlander 28.01.2005 22:23 |
So you completely rule out genetics as a factor for intelligence? |
| Sebastian 29.01.2005 01:40 |
No, but imo they're just responsible for 1% of it. |
| ryancoke 29.01.2005 04:23 |
Lester Burnham wrote: You know, he sang, too. I'm sure his guitar didn't do that. Sorry, just really poking fun at the pedantics here, not you. But I'm still amazed that Brian hasn't gotten more credit than he ever has for his guitar orchestrations; amazing that Keith Richards can get so much plaudits for writing three notes for '(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction', but Brian's work on the early Queen albums, where he was particularly creative, goes unnoticed.That's media for ya - heads in the wrong places. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 29.01.2005 11:37 |
It's a shame that so much of Brian's work has gone unnoticed. I asked him a 3 part question on his soapbox a few months back that I would have loved to have seen him answer, but unfortunately he didn't. The first part dealt with his response to critics of the musical, and since Queen were forever slagged, has it made him particularly sensitive, and is there any justified criticism he'd accept, as everything I've read deals with the story being totally contrived. The second part was dealt with the flip side of criticism, and asked him how it felt when he or Queen is cited for praise by an artist. For instance, Motley Crue is quoted praising Queen II on Brian's site yesterday, and Nuno played a beautiful May-like solo on his Schizophonic disc a few yers back. The final part, to get to Good Company, was whether Brian, who I always think is self-deprecating when it comes to his talents, ever said when creating something like Good Company, "Jesus Christ, you're a fucking genius." I think his early stuff is the stuff of genius, I wonder if he felt that way or if he was too close to pass judgement. I guess I'll never know! |
| bassist08 29.01.2005 20:16 |
I totally agree with you. We all know that Hendrix is praised with his unique sounds from his guitar. But think about a lot of songs by Queen (mainly early/70's Queen) and what noises come from that. It is crazy, and takes talent to say the least; the very least. *Sigh* The songs unheard by most of the so called "music-conscious" people (by Queen) are the ones that deserve the most praise. Cheers |
| bassist08 29.01.2005 20:19 |
So sorry about the last comment, my computers evil. It was supposed to be in a quote box. I totally agree with you. Some of Queen's older, lesser known songs are sometimes better than their well known, constantly played ones. My own personal favorite is Nevermore. Such a beautiful song. |
| Mr Mercury 29.01.2005 20:58 |
Here's what Brian said when I asked him way back in January 2004 about the use of an Ebow on Good Company (I had just recently purchased one and the info that came with it said Brian had used one during the recording of this track) "To tell you the truth, I don't remember using an E-Bow on "Good Company", though it was a long time ago and I could possibly have forgotten!! As I remember it, I did it all with the small "Deacy" amp, with microphones placed at various places relative to the speaker cone, depending on what tone I wanted the part to have, plus in some cases a "Wah Wah" pedal set to a particular place in its range, to colour the sound, and for some sounds, a volume pedal to vary the attack of, say, the "trombone". I DID use an E-bow on stage though. It was very useful for starting off my long solo at one point. I could make long Whale-like noises by gently moving the device up to a position over a low string. Along with use of the Tremolo to zoom the pitch way down, and the delays I was using at the time, it gave a lot of scope for building up weird textures. I really enjoyed it if the mood was developing well that night. Usually at some point after a couple of minutes I would lob the E-Bow in Jobby's direction, and lay into the guitar with a pick instead, going into more rhythmic areas. I don't know what happened to my E-bow - haven't seen it for years. Must get another one to play around with!!! The reason I didn't get heavily into it as a technique was really because I always liked to produce sustain by feedback through the air. This is quite controllable in one way, since you can move around the stage to get different degrees of positive feedback to keep the sustain going, but it's also quite exciting because unpredictable things happen - the sustained note may burst into another octave or a higher overtone. Mr. Clapton used to use this to great effect in his days in Cream. I used this too a fair bit in the early days, notably in the stage intro to "Stone Cold Crazy" , and later, along with a fed-back harmoniser, in the solo section of "Get Down Make Love" . Cheers - Happy 2004 !! Brian" At least it partly answers the question. And incase you are wondering what an Ebow is, just check out this site link . Mick Ronson played one during the FM Tribute show on "Heroes" |
| Awesome-O _4000 29.01.2005 21:14 |
Sebastian wrote: > Would that include bringing himself into existence? Again, yes and no. What I think is that everybody's got the same potential for anything. Something different is the fact that everybody's brain works a different way, and everybody's personality affects that as well. For instance, a person with good concentration would be a wonderful chef, or a wonderful pianist, or a wonderful writer imo, whatever they choose, they'd do it, more than a person without good concentration, even if they both practice equal. Matter of taste more than "god-given pre-disposition" Now, there are some minimal physic factors (e.g. the length of the fingers and their flexibility, something rather anatomical) but imo they don'T affect more than 1%. Of course I don't just mean concentration, also dedication, etc. As I said, I don't believe in talent, but that's just an opinion. As much as it hasn't ever scientifically proved to exist. I can't give credit 100% to Brian (or anyone) for what they achieve, of course. Perhaps his mom made him invent short stories as a kid and that's why he developed such creativity from such an early age, etc. > how do you explain Mozart, for example, who was able to perform keyboard works he heard his sister playing without ever having studied or practiced at all? Mozart is considered a giften kid. Then when he turned 14 he wasn't anymore. Now he was a gifted teenager. Now, that's something else.. imHo there's no such thing as a "genius" either. Wolfgang Amadeus probably had his brain working in a different way, like those "weird children" you mention, who somehow can paint a landscape exactly the same just looking at it once during a minute, etc, etc. Apparently they've got some part of the brain "blocked" and they don't focus in one detail, instead they see/hear it all. Why did he end up that way? I dunno, thousands of possible factors again. Everything makes a difference, from the food you eat to the nurse rhymes you listen. > How do you explain a kid like Tiger Woods? Superior hand-eye coordination from an early age. Now that part is, as I said, probably (for minimal extent though) affected by anatomical factors imo. I don't know, some chromosome of him worked differently or something... but just likewise, imo he could have developed that from his childhood in some sort of way we'll never know. Perhaps he shuffled cards or anything ... just, again, I agree to disagree. I've got my own way of thinking about that and I don't mean to make anyone change their mind, as well as I won't change mine. > Brian obviously had an amazing analytical mind early on (figuring out parts of Buddy Holly records), and that's a big part of his talent as an arranger. How would he practice that? Like you said, figuring out parts of the records. Practice makes the master. Kids can learn anything. If he started doing it early on, then it'd be easy for him to keep doing it and eventually he could, for instance, listen to a choir and make a transcription or whatever. But it does have a logical explanation and is ... well, that. TTFNAh yes... the everlasting question of nature vs. nurture. Why does it have to be one or the other? Sebastian makes excellent points about how saying somebody has talent is kind of making an excuse for their skill... But again... there IS such a thing as talent, IF you define it correctly: talent is nothing more and nothing less than a seed full of POTENTIAL for greatness. My sister is incapable of holding a tune and doesn't have a feel for music. I on the other hand taught myself to play the piano w/ out ANY help when I was 10. I have talent for music where she does not... but it only means I have the potential. As Sebastian said, If one doesn't focus and work hard, then your talent doesn't really exhist. BUT if my sister and I were to both learn an instrument |