liam 13.02.2008 08:23 |
The production qualities of the 80's albums with mack are crap compared to the albums from the 70's. The drums seem weak, the guitar just sounds empty, the songs themselves seem empty and just suffer from that 80's poor production. Queens songs themselves can not be compared to the 70's songs, perhaps mack had an input in this. Any thoughts? |
Bohardy 13.02.2008 08:39 |
Of course he did (have an input on the 'empty' sound), of course he was (a bad producer, or at least one that didn't best serve Queen to my and many other's tastes), and of course Queen themselves decided to use Mack, continued to use him, and were, at the time, happy with his work. |
Treasure Moment 13.02.2008 09:15 |
Mack is awesome, fuck anybody who talks shit about him. |
olly1988 13.02.2008 10:10 |
I thought the production on the Works was good. It was crisp, fresh sounding and had some very original drum sounds. I personally thought Mack was one that helped Queen get out of the rut that albums like 'News of the World' has got them into. |
louvox 13.02.2008 10:51 |
I never cared for “Mack’s” producing skills. Most things he produced tended to sound sterile & flat. Part of the problem Queen had with their albums from the 80’s He tended to make them sound just like most of the acts from that era. His best skills were producing light weight disco/dance tunes and even that skill was ordinary at best. |
FriedChicken 13.02.2008 11:20 |
I think Mack is a great producer. He has a totally different approach to recording than for example a Roy Thomas Baker or a David Richards. In my mind he's not really innovative like Baker was, but he certainly knows his stuff very well. Listen to The Game for example. In my opinion thats the best sounding album soundwise. It's not as daring as A Day at the Races. But it's really the best in overall sound. the drums sound crystal clear and the vocals really cut through everything. Listen to the drums of Rock It, they really have this shiny, sparkling quality to it |
Sebastian 13.02.2008 11:34 |
I think Queen's declination in the 80's was mostly because they became mediocre songwriters and performers, not because of the production. |
Treasure Moment 13.02.2008 12:05 |
Sebastian wrote: I think Queen's declination in the 80's was mostly because they became mediocre songwriters and performers, not because of the production.mediocre songwriters hahah joke of the century! i want to see YOU write one of those "mediocre" songs |
Danne 13.02.2008 12:16 |
In my mind it's both a question about songwriting and sound. And, to me, Hot Space, The Works and A Kind of Magic are the worst-sounding albums in Queen's catalogue. I much prefer David Richards (although he contributed to some of the tracks on aKoM) production on The Miracle and Innuendo, which has a much warmer sound, despite the meticulous (over-)production. The drum sound especially is rather horrible on the Mack produced albums. |
mooghead 13.02.2008 12:31 |
He was the best for the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but Queen had to change their sound for the 80's or disappear into oblivion, Mack was the man for the job. He did exactly what was required of him. |
DavidRFuller 13.02.2008 12:41 |
mooghead wrote: He was the best for the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but Queen had to change their sound for the 80's or disappear into oblivion, Mack was the man for the job. He did exactly what was required of him.I Agree |
Treasure Moment 13.02.2008 12:42 |
Queen and specially Freddie cant write bad music |
lyricalassasin77 13.02.2008 12:48 |
I find it hilarious that the guy above said they was mediocre songwriters in the 80's but to slight their PERFORMING abilities through the 80's when they put on some of their greatest shows ever just dismisses this guy for real. |
Treasure Moment 13.02.2008 12:55 |
lyricalassasin77 wrote: I find it hilarious that the guy above said they was mediocre songwriters in the 80's but to slight their PERFORMING abilities through the 80's when they put on some of their greatest shows ever just dismisses this guy for real.are you talking about me? since i like queens 80s material plus 90s to be their best |
write your letters in the sand 13.02.2008 13:10 |
Treasure Moment wrote: Queen and specially Freddie cant write bad musicUm, have you listened to "Delilah"? |
FriedChicken 13.02.2008 13:18 |
I don't think they became mediocre composers or performers. I think they just wanted to try something else. And stacking up 20+ guitars and vocals weren't nessecary for that. And it's all in the eye of the beholder. A boyband fan might love Break Free, but thinks March of the Black Queen is a terrible song, because it doesn't have a catchy tune or something to dance to. It's just what you're listening for. |
brENsKi 13.02.2008 13:28 |
olly1988 wrote: I thought the production on the Works was good. It was crisp, fresh sounding and had some very original drum sounds. I personally thought Mack was one that helped Queen get out of the rut that albums like 'News of the World' has got them into.sorry, but i disagree. NOTW and Jazz actually sounded like there had been some production applied to them. Works sounds empty - almost like the band recorded it themselves...it has that "empty theatre, rehearsal sound" to it i really hate it - the sound, not the songs |
brENsKi 13.02.2008 13:29 |
write your letters in the sand wrote:and body languageTreasure Moment wrote: Queen and specially Freddie cant write bad musicUm, have you listened to "Delilah"? |
Treasure Moment 13.02.2008 13:41 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:yes and they both are great songs, sure they are less serious than the other songs but still great songs.write your letters in the sand wrote:and body languageTreasure Moment wrote: Queen and specially Freddie cant write bad musicUm, have you listened to "Delilah"? |
brENsKi 13.02.2008 13:57 |
you really are a clueless queen-stepford sychophantic tw*t |
Sebastian 13.02.2008 14:01 |
> mediocre songwriters hahah joke of the century! i want to see YOU write one of those "mediocre" songs Mediocre isn't "I can do it better". Mediocre is "THEY could do it better". Having somebody like Freddie penning 'Body Language' is mediocre. > The drum sound especially is rather horrible on the Mack produced albums. I quite like it, actually. Except where they used synths or machines, but that's because of (now dated) technology, not because of the producer. > I find it hilarious that the guy above said they was mediocre songwriters in the 80's but to slight their PERFORMING abilities through the 80's when they put on some of their greatest shows ever just dismisses this guy for real. Loads of concerts from the 70's were much better than Live Aid and Magic Tour. In the 80's they were entertainers, in the 70's they were musicians. > I think they just wanted to try something else. And stacking up 20+ guitars and vocals weren't nessecary for that. And it's all in the eye of the beholder. I don't think a good composer must use 20+ chords and 5+ modulations, or a good performer must layer 20+ guitars or voices. 'Dear Friends' is a wonderful song, having only one instrument (with very easy parts) and a very simple structure and harmony. But OTOH 'Don't Try Suicide' (with crazy chords and modal switches) is way below its composer's level. It's like having a top painter drawing a mountain, a tree and a sun, knowing that they could do something much better (and by 'better', I don't mean complex). > A boyband fan might love Break Free, but thinks March of the Black Queen is a terrible song, because it doesn't have a catchy tune or something to dance to. I'm a boyband fan and I don't like 'Break Free', and I don't think either that or 'Black Queen' have "something to dance to" ;) |
Pim Derks 13.02.2008 14:40 |
Yeah but you're Sebastian and you always have to keep going on and on and on about your point of view. |
Treasure Moment 13.02.2008 14:44 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: you really are a clueless queen-stepford sychophantic tw*tim a real queen fan unlike you |
Legy 13.02.2008 15:27 |
Mack had the "less is more" way of recording. I personally enjoy music produced by Mack. Hammer to Fall, Under Pressure, One Vision, Another One Bites the Dust were all produced by Mack. |
Treasure Moment 13.02.2008 15:55 |
artemismoon wrote: Mack had the "less is more" way of recording. I personally enjoy music produced by Mack. Hammer to Fall, Under Pressure, One Vision, Another One Bites the Dust were all produced by Mack.also he seems to be a very nice guy and if freddie calls someone genius he must be DAMN good |
Hayek Eva 13.02.2008 16:05 |
What it concern the music Freddie was perfectionist,- if I know well. On the second disc of the Milton Keynes DVD you can find an interview from 1982 registered in Munich.Freddie said they are very contented with Mack, he is an absolute professional. I think his conceit is enough proof. |
Wiley 13.02.2008 16:06 |
Treasure Moment wrote:He was just being "nice" or "modest", you know? Like you say every Queen band member is when he acknowledges other musicians and regards them as heroes or geniuses...artemismoon wrote: Mack had the "less is more" way of recording. I personally enjoy music produced by Mack. Hammer to Fall, Under Pressure, One Vision, Another One Bites the Dust were all produced by Mack.also he seems to be a very nice guy and if freddie calls someone genius he must be DAMN good Back on topic, I really like the sound of The Game and I truly enjoy parts of Hot Space, but AKOM is one of my least favorite albums. I would have said the same about The Works, but every now and then I get back to listen to it, while I NEVER listen to AKOM. |
John S Stuart 13.02.2008 16:25 |
mooghead wrote: He was the best for the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but Queen had to change their sound for the 80's or disappear into oblivion, Mack was the man for the job. He did exactly what was required of him.No question about it. While punk killed every other glam band stone-dead, Queen survived the onslaught because they had the sense to change sound. 'The Game', 'Hot Space' and 'The Works' are all very '80's sounding albums - and just like the fashions - pop from that era was not as innovative as the eras before it. So for me, Queen, Mack, and even the albums themselves were all victims of the time in which they created - what art is not? Anyone remember 'Another One Bites The Dust'? If not - it was only the biggest Queen track on the planet - ever. In terms of sale, AOBTD was even bigger than 'Bo Rhap'. Love him - or loath him, Mack certainly was whom the band thought was THE best at the time - and at the end of the day - I think they were correct, and if we judge him in context, I think we would be sore pushed to find anyone better. |
Treasure Moment 13.02.2008 17:16 |
Wiley wrote:no, the diffrence is that freddie really meaned it but roger and brian dont. Freddie CHOSE mack to work with and wouldnt do that if he didnt think he was great.Treasure Moment wrote:He was just being "nice" or "modest", you know? Like you say every Queen band member is when he acknowledges other musicians and regards them as heroes or geniuses... Back on topic, I really like the sound of The Game and I truly enjoy parts of Hot Space, but AKOM is one of my least favorite albums. I would have said the same about The Works, but every now and then I get back to listen to it, while I NEVER listen to AKOM.artemismoon wrote: Mack had the "less is more" way of recording. I personally enjoy music produced by Mack. Hammer to Fall, Under Pressure, One Vision, Another One Bites the Dust were all produced by Mack.also he seems to be a very nice guy and if freddie calls someone genius he must be DAMN good Brian and roger just tell every crappy singer on idol that they are awesome just because they are singing queen songs and they want to keep the legacy and the name alive so they play good guys with all these talentless "singers" and to the public. |
brENsKi 13.02.2008 17:28 |
Treasure Moment wrote:fuck off you cretin...i paid good money for every rare and standard release, saw the original queen five times 79-86<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: you really are a clueless queen-stepford sychophantic tw*tim a real queen fan unlike you jusyt because i'm not a raving mentalist stepford like you - you think that because you'd love the sound of Freddie farting in a jar that makes you a better fan than me? get real...idiot |
...assdude.... 39702 13.02.2008 17:43 |
olly1988 wrote: I thought the production on the Works was good. It was crisp, fresh sounding and had some very original drum sounds. I personally thought Mack was one that helped Queen get out of the rut that albums like 'News of the World' has got them into.How did NOTW get them in a rut????????? |
...assdude.... 39702 13.02.2008 17:44 |
DavidRFuller wrote:True that...mooghead wrote: He was the best for the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but Queen had to change their sound for the 80's or disappear into oblivion, Mack was the man for the job. He did exactly what was required of him.I Agree When the works came out, it a was great fucking album... clear, fresh and chrisp. ... just about 80 from the 80's had dated, so |
Bobby_brown 13.02.2008 17:46 |
John S Stuart wrote: Love him - or loath him, Mack certainly was whom the band thought was THE best at the time - and at the end of the day - I think they were correct, and if we judge him in context, I think we would be sore pushed to find anyone better.I agree with you. I remember an interview were Mack stated that the album he was most proud of was "Hot Space" because it was put toghether almost without the four members being in the studio at the same time. The album sounds great as sounds "the Game", but the songs were not written by him, even though i like the albums. The first time Spike reharsed with the band for the works tour he realised that they had never played the song "IWTBF" toghether. Mack did what he could, and under those circunstances i think he did extremelly well. Take care |
...assdude.... 39702 13.02.2008 17:46 |
Treasure Moment wrote:hahaha to guys here who I used to argue the fuck out of, now all together...lyricalassasin77 wrote: I find it hilarious that the guy above said they was mediocre songwriters in the 80's but to slight their PERFORMING abilities through the 80's when they put on some of their greatest shows ever just dismisses this guy for real.are you talking about me? since i like queens 80s material plus 90s to be their best eheh anyway T.M... I dont think L.A is talking bout you,,, talking bout the fact that this dude said queen were more or less shit in the 80's...and wrong he was.. |
...assdude.... 39702 13.02.2008 17:47 |
write your letters in the sand wrote:have you been on your death bed in pain knowing you have months to live trying to bust out tunes on borrowed time???Treasure Moment wrote: Queen and specially Freddie cant write bad musicUm, have you listened to "Delilah"? |
Mr.Jingles 13.02.2008 20:10 |
So Queen wasn't mediocre during the 70s, which means they were just perfect back then. Yet I see countless number of performances from the old days where Freddie runs out of air on bits, and he fucked up big time on 'Death On Two Legs' at Earls Court, slipping out a horrendously bad rooster like scream. Personally I find that during the 70s Freddie made Queen live shows more about entertaining rather than the actual music, that's why he was so into those fuckin ridiculous stage outfits. I'm glad that by the 80s he wasn't so much into the make up and what kind of shit the band wears on stage. In the old days John for once wasn't very happy about Freddie telling him what to wear, and he was damn right about that. Point is, musicians are human beings. They make mistakes just like everybody else, and they never seem to make everybody happy. I agree that Freddie's songwriting abilities declined in the 80s, but for the most part Brian, Roger, and John kept writing good songs. |
Smitty 13.02.2008 21:10 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Point is, musicians are human beings. They make mistakes just like everybody else, and they never seem to make everybody happy. I agree that Freddie's songwriting abilities declined in the 80s, but for the most part Brian, Roger, and John kept writing good songs.Quoted for truth. "Freddie's songwriting abilities declined in the 80s", true as it is, will make the stepfords go into a frenzy though. |
luthorn 15.02.2008 02:11 |
Fred Mercury was a member of Queen??? I didn't know that!!! We should have a topic about that too. Who's Mack? I hear Fred was a homoseksual? Does his homoseksuality have something to do with the way he sounds? |
brENsKi 15.02.2008 05:23 |
...ASSDUDE.... wrote:doesn't make it a GOOD SONG though. you don't say "oh well that performance by Man Utd was excellent" if they just lost 4-0write your letters in the sand wrote:have you been on your death bed in pain knowing you have months to live trying to bust out tunes on borrowed time???Treasure Moment wrote: Queen and specially Freddie cant write bad musicUm, have you listened to "Delilah"? |
Mr.Jingles 15.02.2008 07:50 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:Let's be honest about 'Delilah' for a moment....ASSDUDE.... wrote:doesn't make it a GOOD SONG though. you don't say "oh well that performance by Man Utd was excellent" if they just lost 4-0write your letters in the sand wrote:have you been on your death bed in pain knowing you have months to live trying to bust out tunes on borrowed time???Treasure Moment wrote: Queen and specially Freddie cant write bad musicUm, have you listened to "Delilah"? It's not the worst Queen song, but it's way too silly to be put on a Queen album. The only reason why 'Delilah' made the final cut to Innuendo is because it's hard to say "NO" to a man with a foot on the grave. |
Fenderek 15.02.2008 08:12 |
Sebastian wrote: Having somebody like Freddie penning 'Body Language' is mediocre.And that's very delicately put ;) |
lyricalassasin77 15.02.2008 10:10 |
lyricalassasin77 wrote: I find it hilarious that the guy above said they was mediocre songwriters in the 80's but to slight their PERFORMING abilities through the 80's when they put on some of their greatest shows ever just dismisses this guy for real.UM NO......scroll above and you will see whom I'm talking about |
Micrówave 15.02.2008 12:11 |
...ASSDUDE.... wrote: How did NOTW get them in a rut?????????Because it sounded like the last album. Kinda like Jazz did, too. Not that they weren't good albums, but those last four were starting to sound alike. Mack, as John Stuart said, brought this band thru a rather strange music change in the late 70s/early 80s. And with flying colors. Not only did their old fans tag along, they reached a new generation. Not too many 70s bands were able to do that. I mean, what did Roy Thomas Baker do that was so groundbreaking after Bohemian Rhapsody? And wasn't a lot of that Bohemian buzz due in part to Freddie? Mack's production earned Queen more fans than they had ever had before, brought them into the world of film scoring, and had success with other artists in addition to Queen. So, that sucks? I don't think so. |
mooghead 15.02.2008 14:18 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:Its completely subjective. I don't like NOTW and hate Jazz, it sounds like it was recorded live, awful production and too rushed (although contains Freddie's best song so....)olly1988 wrote: I thought the production on the Works was good. It was crisp, fresh sounding and had some very original drum sounds. I personally thought Mack was one that helped Queen get out of the rut that albums like 'News of the World' has got them into.sorry, but i disagree. NOTW and Jazz actually sounded like there had been some production applied to them. Works sounds empty - almost like the band recorded it themselves...it has that "empty theatre, rehearsal sound" to it i really hate it - the sound, not the songs |
mooghead 15.02.2008 14:23 |
Treasure Moment wrote:A real Queen fan forms opinions and isn't a fawning arse licker. I left the 'other' queen site coz of all the vomit inducing 'I think ALL Queen songs are the best' brigade. Body Language is a disgrace, its not even so bad its good. Same with Delilah. Bicycle Race is nearly there.<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: you really are a clueless queen-stepford sychophantic tw*tim a real queen fan unlike you |
Treasure Moment 15.02.2008 17:36 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:nothing wrong with delilah at all, sure its not a serious song and i dont listen to it often if at all but still not a bad song, dont forget how incredibly awesome stuff that is on the very same album, Queens best album is innuendo....ASSDUDE.... wrote:doesn't make it a GOOD SONG though. you don't say "oh well that performance by Man Utd was excellent" if they just lost 4-0write your letters in the sand wrote:have you been on your death bed in pain knowing you have months to live trying to bust out tunes on borrowed time???Treasure Moment wrote: Queen and specially Freddie cant write bad musicUm, have you listened to "Delilah"? |
Micrówave 15.02.2008 18:07 |
That's right Treasure Moment. And the Jingle Bells by the singing dogs is a good song, too! Interesting how you think Innuendo is their best album... the one with the least amount of input from Freddie. |
Danne 16.02.2008 10:34 |
mooghead wrote: Its completely subjective. I don't like NOTW and hate Jazz, it sounds like it was recorded live, awful production and too rushed (although contains Freddie's best song so....)I like NotW, but I agree that Jazz sounds really horrible. |
steven 35638 16.02.2008 12:14 |
I don't believe Mack to be a bad producer at all. The sound Mack produced was of the time. And rightfully so. It's quite clear that Queen favored him over any other producer at the time since Freddie stated he didn't want to work with anybody else. That being said, I happen to prefer the Queen sound in the seventies, but that might be mostly in part because I preferred the more experimental side of Queen. In my opinion, the worst album in terms of quality has to be Jazz. The sound of the drums are awful. |
Danne 16.02.2008 12:20 |
<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: I don't believe Mack to be a bad producer at all. The sound Mack produced was of the time.He was probably the right producer for that time, agree. But the production values of that time have dated a lot more than those from the 70's or, for that instance, those from the 60's. In hindsight Mack's production sounds horrible, but at the time it was extremely modern, I guess. But, as often happens when you try to be modern, it's hard to stand the test of time. |
john bodega 16.02.2008 13:00 |
I don't think the 70's formula was tired until Jazz. Not for me, anyway. Mack = meh, I guess they needed something different but it could've been anyone. I guess they needed someone around to go "NO" to the band - I'm under the impression it was Mack who insisted Brian use a Tele on CLTCL, but correct me if I'm wrong. I might be mixing up my anecdotes here, I'm sure Mack insisted he do something against his own instincts. If there's bad production on any Queen album, for me it's Innuendo. Hitman is the absolute worst sounding track on the album, which is a pity because the song itself could've been kick-ass. The sound is just... blurrrgh. I always have to tinker with the EQ in iTunes to make it tolerable and it still doesn't help. |
John S Stuart 16.02.2008 14:42 |
Zebonka12 wrote: If there's bad production on any Queen album, for me it's Innuendo. Hitman is the absolute worst sounding track on the album...Anyone actually listen to 'White Man' on the 'Day At The Races' LP/ CD? How anyone can hear anything beyond the tape hiss is beyond me. |
Winter Land Man 16.02.2008 16:18 |
Mack is a genious. He's going to work on Britney Spears upcoming album. |
...assdude.... 39702 16.02.2008 19:01 |
Micrówave wrote:I see what your saying and agree with just about all if it, but i still dont see how NOTW put them in a rut. This was right at the time when Punk rock exploded... Most bands just died in the ass... Queen how ever......... didnt suffer from that. they had NOTW and that had steet cred. That album had balls. It had punk on there, yet it wasnt a band "trying hard" to do punk, it was natural for them, whihc what i am trying to say is that were not sheep,followers and that album brought the threw tough times in which i dont see how a rut could do that....ASSDUDE.... wrote: How did NOTW get them in a rut?????????Because it sounded like the last album. Kinda like Jazz did, too. Not that they weren't good albums, but those last four were starting to sound alike. Mack, as John Stuart said, brought this band thru a rather strange music change in the late 70s/early 80s. And with flying colors. Not only did their old fans tag along, they reached a new generation. Not too many 70s bands were able to do that. I mean, what did Roy Thomas Baker do that was so groundbreaking after Bohemian Rhapsody? And wasn't a lot of that Bohemian buzz due in part to Freddie? Mack's production earned Queen more fans than they had ever had before, brought them into the world of film scoring, and had success with other artists in addition to Queen. So, that sucks? I don't think so. |
...assdude.... 39702 16.02.2008 19:08 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:thats a totally different argument and you know it. Im talking about looking at somethign for what its worth.....ASSDUDE.... wrote:doesn't make it a GOOD SONG though. you don't say "oh well that performance by Man Utd was excellent" if they just lost 4-0write your letters in the sand wrote:have you been on your death bed in pain knowing you have months to live trying to bust out tunes on borrowed time???Treasure Moment wrote: Queen and specially Freddie cant write bad musicUm, have you listened to "Delilah"? if you had 300 dollors each week to feed and cloth your family, then all of sudden you loose yout job and now live of 50, how ever, your feeding them, clothing, paying bill, id say your doin pretty well for 50 bucks... It aint like have 300, but you doing well.. so the point is, Freddie was probably in a fucking wheelchair sipping vodka to get of his ass to sing a fucking song so you can turn around and say its shit.... go back to marys house and whipe her door clean, i left some shit on there for you to wash of. |
Crazy LittleThing 16.02.2008 20:18 |
...ASSDUDE.... wrote:So you agree that "Delilah" isn't a great song then.write your letters in the sand wrote:have you been on your death bed in pain knowing you have months to live trying to bust out tunes on borrowed time???Treasure Moment wrote: Queen and specially Freddie cant write bad musicUm, have you listened to "Delilah"? |
...assdude... 39830 16.02.2008 21:16 |
Crazy LittleThing wrote:what deffines a great song???...ASSDUDE.... wrote:So you agree that "Delilah" isn't a great song then.write your letters in the sand wrote:have you been on your death bed in pain knowing you have months to live trying to bust out tunes on borrowed time???Treasure Moment wrote: Queen and specially Freddie cant write bad musicUm, have you listened to "Delilah"? I like the song for what it is and whats its worth... Its not somethign to write home about, but i also dont think that its shit, and in retrospect, the whole album speaks of the fact that this is it... its good bye.., so its nice to know that when somes ones months away from deathm they still have a wicked sense of humour to create out-landish songs |
steven 35638 16.02.2008 23:15 |
Zebonka12 wrote: If there's bad production on any Queen album, for me it's Innuendo. Hitman is the absolute worst sounding track on the album, which is a pity because the song itself could've been kick-ass. The sound is just... blurrrgh. I always have to tinker with the EQ in iTunes to make it tolerable and it still doesn't help.It's amazing how taste differs. I always thought Innuendo sounded crystal clear and absolutely perfect. |
Crazy LittleThing 16.02.2008 23:36 |
...ASSDUDE... wrote:Fair enough. I'd define "Bo Rhap" as a great song. I've always assumed "Delilah" was an indulgence that the other guys let him put on the album.Crazy LittleThing wrote:what deffines a great song??? I like the song for what it is and whats its worth... Its not somethign to write home about, but i also dont think that its shit, and in retrospect, the whole album speaks of the fact that this is it... its good bye.., so its nice to know that when somes ones months away from deathm they still have a wicked sense of humour to create out-landish songs...ASSDUDE.... wrote:So you agree that "Delilah" isn't a great song then.write your letters in the sand wrote:have you been on your death bed in pain knowing you have months to live trying to bust out tunes on borrowed time???Treasure Moment wrote: Queen and specially Freddie cant write bad musicUm, have you listened to "Delilah"? |
john bodega 17.02.2008 01:17 |
<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote:Hmmm...Zebonka12 wrote: If there's bad production on any Queen album, for me it's Innuendo. Hitman is the absolute worst sounding track on the album, which is a pity because the song itself could've been kick-ass. The sound is just... blurrrgh. I always have to tinker with the EQ in iTunes to make it tolerable and it still doesn't help.It's amazing how taste differs. I always thought Innuendo sounded crystal clear and absolutely perfect. I didn't like the drum sound much on most of the songs, and as I said, Hitman suffers. It sounds like it's coming out of a cheap radio. It's funny you mention taste, because as far as the songs themselves go, Innuendo is probably my second favourite Queen album. I'm only saying - the production was a turn-off for me. |
john bodega 17.02.2008 01:19 |
John S Stuart wrote:I dunno man, tape hiss is a failing of the old technology.Zebonka12 wrote: If there's bad production on any Queen album, for me it's Innuendo. Hitman is the absolute worst sounding track on the album...Anyone actually listen to 'White Man' on the 'Day At The Races' LP/ CD? How anyone can hear anything beyond the tape hiss is beyond me. They didn't have that excuse for Innuendo. Maybe I'm alone in this, but when I hear a song where everything is as loud as it can be (to take advantage of all that range that CDs have) it just sounds like noise. That's what I get out of Hitman ; white noise. |
...assdude.... 39702 17.02.2008 02:21 |
John S Stuart wrote:Agreed.Zebonka12 wrote: If there's bad production on any Queen album, for me it's Innuendo. Hitman is the absolute worst sounding track on the album...Anyone actually listen to 'White Man' on the 'Day At The Races' LP/ CD? How anyone can hear anything beyond the tape hiss is beyond me. |
Holly2003 17.02.2008 04:15 |
ANATO and ADATR are very similar albums: overproduced, lots of harmonies etc. However, NOTW is a lot rawer and could well be their best album (if SHA didn't exist). |
steven 35638 17.02.2008 10:19 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Fair enough, taste was probably a bit of an assumption on my part. However, I'm listening to the song right now and can honestly say I enjoy the production. 'The Hitman' is a heavy metal composition and that in itself makes it loud and sometimes difficult to listen to over and over again for some people. It's the loudest and heaviest track on the album. That's all I get from it, nothing about the production. But, I'm not taunting you for finding the production a turn-off. You may think so.<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote:Hmmm... I didn't like the drum sound much on most of the songs, and as I said, Hitman suffers. It sounds like it's coming out of a cheap radio. It's funny you mention taste, because as far as the songs themselves go, Innuendo is probably my second favourite Queen album. I'm only saying - the production was a turn-off for me.Zebonka12 wrote: If there's bad production on any Queen album, for me it's Innuendo. Hitman is the absolute worst sounding track on the album, which is a pity because the song itself could've been kick-ass. The sound is just... blurrrgh. I always have to tinker with the EQ in iTunes to make it tolerable and it still doesn't help.It's amazing how taste differs. I always thought Innuendo sounded crystal clear and absolutely perfect. |
john bodega 17.02.2008 11:23 |
Nah, not at all, I guess I was a bigger fan of the old-school idea of 'heavy' when it comes to Queen. To me the 70's way of doing the instruments always sounded bigger; volume on the track has little to do with it, as one can always just turn the stereo up! Cheers |
Winter Land Man 18.02.2008 02:13 |
Micrówave wrote: That's right Treasure Moment. And the Jingle Bells by the singing dogs is a good song, too! Interesting how you think Innuendo is their best album... the one with the least amount of input from Freddie.I wouldn't say Innuendo is the album with the least amount of input from Freddie. Why do you think that? |
Winter Land Man 18.02.2008 02:17 |
On the Innuendo album, I don't think any of the songs are filler. Delilah is actually a serious song I think, to Freddie, but maybe not to a lot of fans. Freddie had some guts to record that song. Not many men would. It took a gay one to do it. I love all the songs on Innuendo. I actually think there's a lot more filler on other stuff like Jazz and News Of The World and A Night At The Opera. Some of John's early stuff (Who Needs You, Misfire), sound like filler. Roger's early songs really didn't get too much attention either. Some of Brian and Freddie's stuff was filler as well. With Innuendo, it's like this one big perfect album. As for 'The Hitman', I think it'd of been better if it was more raw, instead of mixed to sound raw. I think the music could of been improved as well. But I like that song. I like most of their 80s and 90s stuff. Most of their 70s stuff too. But I think they had more filler in the 70s than any decade. |
john bodega 18.02.2008 03:02 |
It depends on your definition of filler. Was the 'filler' song intended to be thus, or is it just what we call it because we don't think it belongs on the album?? Delilah is the perfect example. A lot of people dismiss it as filler because it's there in the midst of more grim songs. Of course, it wasn't a filler song to Freddie - he defied the others (Roger, anyway) in having it on the album. So when you say the 70's had more filler than any other period for Queen, do you mean they wrote songs back then simply to top up the length of the album, or are some of the songs too whimsical in nature when compared to their other work? |
Treasure Moment 18.02.2008 04:52 |
Innuendo is the greatest album of all time forever, its not from this world |
Micrówave 18.02.2008 10:32 |
! Jake ! wrote: I wouldn't say Innuendo is the album with the least amount of input from Freddie. Why do you think that?Well, for one, Freddie was not around too much. Sure he wrote some songs at home and came in to sing his parts, in the time he was allowed to due to failing health. This was totally different than previous albums. Look at all the documentaries of Queen in the studio. Freddie is always at the console, always on mic, always leading the backing vocals, etc. Obviously Brian took the reigns, along with much more input from John and Roger this time. Plus, I think that put the other 3 in a strange position. Could you 'nix' one of Freddie's tracks? How could you tell him that "the three of us decided Delilah was not good enough to make the album, we're gonna use Lost Opportunity instead". Was the material that weak that Brian decided to let the band use Headlong, instead of including that on Back To The Light? I don't know, that's how I interpreted Innuendo. Now imagine if Mack was on that instead? None of those overly gated snare drums, crisper punchier bass, now that would have been something! |
Holly2003 18.02.2008 11:29 |
Treasure Moment wrote: Innuendo is the greatest album of all time forever, its not from this worldIf it's not from this world, are you suggesting that Queen are reptilians? Queen, boxcar willie, bill oddie... who's next? |
steven 35638 18.02.2008 11:52 |
I quick researched each track in order to decipher who wrote what exactly. Innuendo: This track started out as a jam session at Mountain Studios among Brian, Roger, and John. Freddie improvised the lyrics. The final version would feature revised lyrics by Roger, which were also refined by the others including Freddie. I'm Going Slightly Mad: This track is purely a Freddie track as it relates to earlier tracks like 'Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy' and 'Seaside Rendezvous'. It's as far from typical rock as possible; a Freddie trademark. It's been said that Freddie started to write the song while entering a dementia state, which is fairly common among AIDS patients. Brian May said, "That was very much a Freddie track and you tend to want to give the author his head even though we said that everything is by Queen, there was still somebody who was basically the original author and everyone else worked on it." Headlong: It was Brian's intention of including this song on his solo album, Back to the Light. Therefore, it's a Brian track with some input by the other members. I Can't Live With You: This track is also a track that Brian had originally planned for use on his solo album, Back to the Light. Therefore, once again, it's a Brian track with some input by the other members. Don't Try So Hard: Some rumours say John was the creator of this track; however, David Richards recently revealed that the song was the work of Brian and Freddie. There has been no confirmation by the band, so until then it remains to be a Queen track with a question mark. Ride The Wild Wind: This is most probably a Roger track as it's been used during his solo performances. All God's People: This track was written by Freddie and Mike Moran in 1987 and originally intended for Barcelona, with the original title 'Africa By Night'. These Are The Days of Our Lives: There is no doubt this song was written by Roger and is obviously a heartfelt tribute to Freddie. Delilah: This song is obviously another Freddie track as it's about his favorite cat. The Hitman: This song was originally written by Freddie on the keyboards; however, Freddie gave it to John who restructured the track (while keeping true to the original riff which is a Freddie riff). Brian also changed the key to make it playable on the guitar. Bijou: This is a duet between Freddie and Brian. The Show Must Go On: Contrary to belief, Brian wrote this song. |
Sebastian 18.02.2008 12:16 |
Freddie wrote: Don't Try So Hard: Some rumours say John was the creator of this track; however, David Richards recently revealed that the song was the work of Brian and Freddie. There has been no confirmation by the band, so until then it remains to be a Queen track with a question mark.Wrong: Bri confirmed (Q Mag 2004) that Fred penned it. Freddie wrote: Ride The Wild Wind: This is most probably a Roger track as it's been used during his solo performances.So were 'Break Free', 'Show Must Go On' and 'We Will Rock You', and he didn't write any of them. OTOH both the song structure, harmony and quotes (from the producer and Dr May) point to Roger. Freddie wrote: The Show Must Go On: Contrary to belief, Brian wrote this song.Sort of ... he wrote the lyrics and melody, and organised the arrangement. But the sequence (which is 90% of the song) was composed by John and Roger. |
steven 35638 18.02.2008 13:26 |
Sebastian wrote:Thanks for your input and corrections.Freddie wrote: Don't Try So Hard: Some rumours say John was the creator of this track; however, David Richards recently revealed that the song was the work of Brian and Freddie. There has been no confirmation by the band, so until then it remains to be a Queen track with a question mark.Wrong: Bri confirmed (Q Mag 2004) that Fred penned it.Freddie wrote: Ride The Wild Wind: This is most probably a Roger track as it's been used during his solo performances.So were 'Break Free', 'Show Must Go On' and 'We Will Rock You', and he didn't write any of them. OTOH both the song structure, harmony and quotes (from the producer and Dr May) point to Roger.Freddie wrote: The Show Must Go On: Contrary to belief, Brian wrote this song.Sort of ... he wrote the lyrics and melody, and organised the arrangement. But the sequence (which is 90% of the song) was composed by John and Roger. |
Bo Alex 18.02.2008 13:39 |
I don't know if he is a bad producer, but I prefer Roy Baker. Mack turns Queen's sound more simplier ond poppy in my opinion. I don't like the drums sound, and the bass is very low too. But it's not all Mack fault's, the band decreased their creativity in the eighties too. |
Holly2003 18.02.2008 15:16 |
Sebastian wrote:Freddie wrote:Lyrics, melody and arrangement = only 10% of the song? Shurely shome misthake?Freddie wrote: The Show Must Go On: Contrary to belief, Brian wrote this song.Sort of ... he wrote the lyrics and melody, and organised the arrangement. But the sequence (which is 90% of the song) was composed by John and Roger. |
Bobby_brown 18.02.2008 16:49 |
Sebastian wrote:What do you mean by sequence?Freddie wrote: The Show Must Go On: Contrary to belief, Brian wrote this song.Sort of ... he wrote the lyrics and melody, and organised the arrangement. But the sequence (which is 90% of the song) was composed by John and Roger. Take care |
...assdude.... 39702 18.02.2008 17:23 |
<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: The Hitman: This song was originally written by Freddie on the keyboards; however, Freddie gave it to John who restructured the track (while keeping true to the original riff which is a Freddie riff). Brian also changed the key to make it playable on the guitar.sounds more like a Brian song... Theres even a demo with Just Brian on Vocals. |
steven 35638 18.02.2008 20:35 |
...ASSDUDE.... wrote:I got my information from Queen Complete Works.<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: The Hitman: This song was originally written by Freddie on the keyboards; however, Freddie gave it to John who restructured the track (while keeping true to the original riff which is a Freddie riff). Brian also changed the key to make it playable on the guitar.sounds more like a Brian song... Theres even a demo with Just Brian on Vocals. |
Winter Land Man 18.02.2008 20:43 |
...ASSDUDE.... wrote:That was to see how the guitar would sound.... I imagine. Brian said it was Freddie who wrote it.<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: The Hitman: This song was originally written by Freddie on the keyboards; however, Freddie gave it to John who restructured the track (while keeping true to the original riff which is a Freddie riff). Brian also changed the key to make it playable on the guitar.sounds more like a Brian song... Theres even a demo with Just Brian on Vocals. |
...assdude.... 39702 18.02.2008 21:43 |
<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote:thats fair enough...ASSDUDE.... wrote:I got my information from Queen Complete Works.<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: The Hitman: This song was originally written by Freddie on the keyboards; however, Freddie gave it to John who restructured the track (while keeping true to the original riff which is a Freddie riff). Brian also changed the key to make it playable on the guitar.sounds more like a Brian song... Theres even a demo with Just Brian on Vocals. |
Legy 19.02.2008 00:23 |
John S Stuart wrote:Actually, it's not tape hiss at all. It's Brian's set up, AC-30 + Treble Booster ++++ fOXX phaser. An AC-30 with a treble booster alone will hiss like crazy, and adding a fOXX phaser make it hiss even more. There's really nothing a producer can do about it but add a noise reducer and that tends to change the sound.Zebonka12 wrote: If there's bad production on any Queen album, for me it's Innuendo. Hitman is the absolute worst sounding track on the album...Anyone actually listen to 'White Man' on the 'Day At The Races' LP/ CD? How anyone can hear anything beyond the tape hiss is beyond me. Check out the song live and you can still hear this hiss. link The actual progression of the song makes it more noticeable. It starts off with guitar and there's nothing playing with it. So, it's very hard to hide without drums, bass and piano. Usually Brian would use the fOXX phaser in the middle of a song, while playing solos, like BoRhap. Brian stopped using the fOXX phaser around '82, then he started using a Boss Chorus CE-1. |
mooghead 19.02.2008 15:19 |
John S Stuart wrote:To me there is a lot of amp buzz, half decent engineers get round it easily enough, i think it is left on purpose for some reason.Zebonka12 wrote: If there's bad production on any Queen album, for me it's Innuendo. Hitman is the absolute worst sounding track on the album...Anyone actually listen to 'White Man' on the 'Day At The Races' LP/ CD? How anyone can hear anything beyond the tape hiss is beyond me. |
Sebastian 19.02.2008 15:31 |
> Lyrics, melody and arrangement = only 10% of the song? No, but in terms of who composed it, and in the case of TSMGO, the sequence is 90% of the song (because verses, choruses, intro and solos are all done over such sequence). Remember 'Knocking on Heaven's Door': when GnR covered it, they added solos, bass-parts, etc. but they were all done over the I > V > IV sequence. That's why the song is still Bob Dylan's, even if they arranged it. Same case here: Brian is the chief lyricist and arranger, but not the (main) composer. > Your 90% remark is presumably a total guess since you have no idea about the original "sequence" or how much was changed by other band members. Read the KOHD comment again. Or another case: 'With A Little Help From My Friends'. > What do you mean by sequence? Bm > Bsus2 > Bsus4 > Bm, then G > G5- > G6 > G and so on... > sounds more like a Brian song... Actually not. If you check out the music, it's much more Freddie-esque. The fact that it's heavy doesn't mean it's May's. > Theres even a demo with Just Brian on Vocals. A 1 minute demo doesn't prove anything. |
John S Stuart 19.02.2008 15:49 |
artemismoon wrote:artemismoon: I bow to your superior knowledge. I did not know any of this. To my untrained ears it sounds like an old tape on a non-Dolby playback system.John S Stuart wrote:Actually, it's not tape hiss at all. It's Brian's set up, AC-30 + Treble Booster ++++ fOXX phaser. An AC-30 with a treble booster alone will hiss like crazy, and adding a fOXX phaser make it hiss even more. There's really nothing a producer can do about it but add a noise reducer and that tends to change the sound. Check out the song live and you can still hear this hiss. link The actual progression of the song makes it more noticeable. It starts off with guitar and there's nothing playing with it. So, it's very hard to hide without drums, bass and piano. Usually Brian would use the fOXX phaser in the middle of a song, while playing solos, like BoRhap. Brian stopped using the fOXX phaser around '82, then he started using a Boss Chorus CE-1.Zebonka12 wrote: If there's bad production on any Queen album, for me it's Innuendo. Hitman is the absolute worst sounding track on the album...Anyone actually listen to 'White Man' on the 'Day At The Races' LP/ CD? How anyone can hear anything beyond the tape hiss is beyond me. I love the song, it's a pity that it can not be cleaned up digitally though... |
Holly2003 19.02.2008 16:21 |
Sebastian wrote: > Lyrics, melody and arrangement = only 10% of the song? No, but in terms of who composed it, and in the case of TSMGO, the sequence is 90% of the song (because verses, choruses, intro and solos are all done over such sequence). Remember 'Knocking on Heaven's Door': when GnR covered it, they added solos, bass-parts, etc. but they were all done over the I > V > IV sequence. That's why the song is still Bob Dylan's, even if they arranged it. Same case here: Brian is the chief lyricist and arranger, but not the (main) composer. > Your 90% remark is presumably a total guess since you have no idea about the original "sequence" or how much was changed by other band members. Read the KOHD comment again. Or another case: 'With A Little Help From My Friends'.I don't see how you can make such a judgement unless you know what Brian's original version sounds like. In the case of KOHD you know what the original sounds like so you know how different or similar a cover is. In this case you don't know what the original Brian version sounded like -- unless you have heard a demo (have you?). |
Sebastian 19.02.2008 16:43 |
I don't know how the 'original' one sounded like, but I do know Brian credited John and Roger for the sequence. Now: the sequence, in this case, is 90% of the song. Hence: Brian isn't that song's main composer (chord-wise), although he's obviously the main (or even only) composer melody-wise, the main lyricist and the main arranger. |
Holly2003 19.02.2008 17:43 |
Sebastian wrote: I don't know how the 'original' one sounded like, but I do know Brian credited John and Roger for the sequence. Now: the sequence, in this case, is 90% of the song. Hence: Brian isn't that song's main composer (chord-wise), although he's obviously the main (or even only) composer melody-wise, the main lyricist and the main arranger.Okay, I've listened to your views but I just don't think there's enough info to make a judgment that 90% is John & Roger's and 10% Brian's. Without knowing the original 'sequence' it's impossible to know how much is different or similar. I would argue also that the lyrics are much more important in this song than the small weight you give to them. (In fact, for some people the lyrics of songs are much more important than the music -- Billy Bragg or Woody Guthrie, for example). If I had to assign 'credit' for the song given the info available it would be "lyrics by brian May, musical arrangement by Taylor/Deacon". Assigning percentages is, however, meaningless. |
GiantSpider 19.02.2008 19:11 |
Getting back to Mack. I don't have the benefit of being old here. I didn't grow up with Queen and haven't heard any of their albums whilst "new". But as a musician and a music lover in general I feel compelled to comment. As far as what Queen should sound like in my mind, Mack isn't there I'm afraid. Roy Thomas Baker's albums with the band sound the best to me. A total overblown sound of a producer and band that doesn't know where to stop is my ideal. And in the 70's Queen had this. NOTW & Jazz begin to fall into oblivion however. These two albums are figuratively and chronological in between the RTB & Mack era's. Songs like FFTI just don't sound good to me. So in step's Mack and out comes The Game. And to be fair, I love the way AOBTD sounds. I think that this is what Mack should be doing. But that's because AOBTD is such a departure from the Queen of old. The sythns sound really bad as well. Queen started using them way to early. David Richards is generally better, MIH being the best sounding, but ICLWY was so underdone its quite shocking. However Mack by all accounts was neccessary in keeping Queen current. Plenty of bands use the "Wall of sound" technique today, but none of them are very mainstream. |
...assdude.... 39702 19.02.2008 19:38 |
The 70' music in general is totally different to the 80's music. So in order to still sell records you need ot chnage with the times. I can say that being an 80/90's boy, I only had queens 80's stuff to listen to, and it was mind blowing. Hearing Tear it up was fucking awsome! Hearing the Miracal album, was bloody aswome! It was music of the time, it was Queen at there most contempory. Having the works, AKOM and the Mircal, I also had hot space, but... hhmm didnt like it much, they were great fucking albums to be brought up on. As I discovered there 70's stuff, straght away, it sounded muffled. It didnt sound clear nor crisp. I didnt like it (love it now and understand all the muffled sound). Point im trying to make is that, for the time, these albums were from a band that did not sound old, not many bands from the 70's still went in to the 80's with fantastic success. So, on that note, yes, mack was a great producer. Dont forget, at this time, queen knew what they were doin and wanted. so... i think its unfair to dismiss mack's talents. |
Sebastian 20.02.2008 13:00 |
Holly2003 wrote:I'm not saying that 90% of the final product is John's and Roger's. I'm saying that 90% of the song's composition (chord-wise), is theirs.Sebastian wrote: I don't know how the 'original' one sounded like, but I do know Brian credited John and Roger for the sequence. Now: the sequence, in this case, is 90% of the song. Hence: Brian isn't that song's main composer (chord-wise), although he's obviously the main (or even only) composer melody-wise, the main lyricist and the main arranger.Okay, I've listened to your views but I just don't think there's enough info to make a judgment that 90% is John & Roger's and 10% Brian's. Without knowing the original 'sequence' it's impossible to know how much is different or similar. I would argue also that the lyrics are much more important in this song than the small weight you give to them. (In fact, for some people the lyrics of songs are much more important than the music -- Billy Bragg or Woody Guthrie, for example). If I had to assign 'credit' for the song given the info available it would be "lyrics by brian May, musical arrangement by Taylor/Deacon". Assigning percentages is, however, meaningless. Melody, lyrics, production, arrangement (each equally important), are of course mostly by Dr May, I'm not denying that. |
drwinston 20.02.2008 17:55 |
John S Stuart wrote:I was surprised that they left it in there as well. I always guessed they were going for that "live and raw" sound, as I don't hear many overdubs on the tune.artemismoon wrote:artemismoon: I bow to your superior knowledge. I did not know any of this. To my untrained ears it sounds like an old tape on a non-Dolby playback system. I love the song, it's a pity that it can not be cleaned up digitally though...John S Stuart wrote:Actually, it's not tape hiss at all. It's Brian's set up, AC-30 + Treble Booster ++++ fOXX phaser. An AC-30 with a treble booster alone will hiss like crazy, and adding a fOXX phaser make it hiss even more. There's really nothing a producer can do about it but add a noise reducer and that tends to change the sound. Check out the song live and you can still hear this hiss. link The actual progression of the song makes it more noticeable. It starts off with guitar and there's nothing playing with it. So, it's very hard to hide without drums, bass and piano. Usually Brian would use the fOXX phaser in the middle of a song, while playing solos, like BoRhap. Brian stopped using the fOXX phaser around '82, then he started using a Boss Chorus CE-1.Zebonka12 wrote: If there's bad production on any Queen album, for me it's Innuendo. Hitman is the absolute worst sounding track on the album...Anyone actually listen to 'White Man' on the 'Day At The Races' LP/ CD? How anyone can hear anything beyond the tape hiss is beyond me. If anyone has the Brian Star Licks video, you can hear just how noisy his rig was when he had all that stuff turned on! Ahh, the old analog days... |
Bobby_brown 20.02.2008 18:28 |
Sebastian wrote:I didn´t knew that Brian credited the sequence to Roger and John.Holly2003 wrote:I'm not saying that 90% of the final product is John's and Roger's. I'm saying that 90% of the song's composition (chord-wise), is theirs. Melody, lyrics, production, arrangement (each equally important), are of course mostly by Dr May, I'm not denying that.Sebastian wrote: I don't know how the 'original' one sounded like, but I do know Brian credited John and Roger for the sequence. Now: the sequence, in this case, is 90% of the song. Hence: Brian isn't that song's main composer (chord-wise), although he's obviously the main (or even only) composer melody-wise, the main lyricist and the main arranger.Okay, I've listened to your views but I just don't think there's enough info to make a judgment that 90% is John & Roger's and 10% Brian's. Without knowing the original 'sequence' it's impossible to know how much is different or similar. I would argue also that the lyrics are much more important in this song than the small weight you give to them. (In fact, for some people the lyrics of songs are much more important than the music -- Billy Bragg or Woody Guthrie, for example). If I had to assign 'credit' for the song given the info available it would be "lyrics by brian May, musical arrangement by Taylor/Deacon". Assigning percentages is, however, meaningless. But i remember the time when someone posted Funtwo playing Pachelbel´s Canon on guitar, Brian made the coment about the effect he wanted for TSMGO being the same as canon- That looping effect. I concluded that it was his idea. Maybe he changed the original idea, or based the song on some Roger and John inicial idea, and changed it. But according to him, this song was hard to nail, because he said he had the idea in his head and he knew he had something special. He pretty much presented the final music version to Freddie. The demo- i think he recorded the full demo, because according to him when he showed the demo to Freddie, he had to sing the line "...on with the show" in falsetto. Then he turned to Freddie and said "..sorry about that". And if i´m not mistaken Freddie nailed it at the first take. Impressive! Take care |
Sebastian 21.02.2008 08:12 |
Again, if GnR create guitar solos, bass-parts, a reggae bit ... all over the KOHD progression, it doesn't make it their song. Plus, what Bri commented about the Pachelbell thing was regarding the song's middle-eight (i.e. the 10% he DID compose). |
Danne 21.02.2008 09:57 |
Sebastian wrote: Plus, what Bri commented about the Pachelbell thing was regarding the song's middle-eight (i.e. the 10% he DID compose).Are you sure about that? Because the middle eight (although repeating the same chord progression twice) isn't very similar to Pachelbel's canon structure. The verse and chorus is, however. |
Sebastian 21.02.2008 10:01 |
Yes, you're right, my mistake. But the KOHD point is still valid: Melody-wise, Brian was the main (maybe the only) composer Lyric-wise, Brian was the main contributor (with some input by Lord Teeth) Arrangement-wise, Brian was the main (and maybe the only) creator, although it's been said that the producer suggested some keys Chord-wise, Brian only contributed to about 10%. |
Holly2003 21.02.2008 11:15 |
Sebastian wrote: Chord-wise, Brian only contributed to about 10%.Please illustrate this by comparing the chords brian originally used with the final version of the song. |
Wiley 21.02.2008 12:54 |
Holly2003 wrote:The point here is that the chords Brian used were somebody else's idea. He built a song out of it, and a GREAT song indeed, but the basis for 90% of the music was not his.Sebastian wrote: Chord-wise, Brian only contributed to about 10%.Please illustrate this by comparing the chords brian originally used with the final version of the song. It is debatable and anybody can have an opinion about it. To me, that song is Brian's baby. He didn't go into labor to give birth to it but he took over right after it came out of the nursery and definately raised it well. |
Holly2003 21.02.2008 14:21 |
Wiley wrote:Where do you get this 90% from? I've been trying to pin down Sebastian on this and I can't get a answer that convinces me assigning percentages makes any sense at all. If Brian came up with the original idea then there's simply no way to tell how different (or assign a percentage) to how much of the final product belongs to him and how much to RT & JD UNLESS one is in a position to compare an early demo with the final release. The argument has shifted from sequence to chords: which one is it? Sequence means the order of the song, doesn't it? In which case the cylical nature of the song, which Brian states was his idea, would lead me to think RT & JD had less to do with it than some would argue.Holly2003 wrote:The point here is that the chords Brian used were somebody else's idea. He built a song out of it, and a GREAT song indeed, but the basis for 90% of the music was not his. It is debatable and anybody can have an opinion about it. To me, that song is Brian's baby. He didn't go into labor to give birth to it but he took over right after it came out of the nursery and definately raised it well.Sebastian wrote: Chord-wise, Brian only contributed to about 10%.Please illustrate this by comparing the chords brian originally used with the final version of the song. |
Sebastian 21.02.2008 14:22 |
Yes, of course I'm not denying the fact that TSMGO is (chiefly and almost solely) Brian's in virtually every other aspect besides the chord progression. The progression alone would've been lost (probably), hadn't Dr May built a song around it (even in pre-demo stages). It's a confuse area: should we consider that John didn't compose 'Break Free' because verses and solo are built over 12-bar blues (which existed long before Deacy was born)? Or what about the loads of songs copying (for some extent) the Pachelbell Canon and other clichéd progressions? OTOH, George Martin scored a string quartet over the 'Yesterday' progression (which was created by Paul), but the song's still McCartney's. So... should we regard Bri as a George Martin who acted as arranger (and of course lyricist, but that's a different matter) rather than composer, or should we regard him as a John Deacon who 'created' a piece using somebody else's invention as canvas? Remember, also, that 'Variations on a Theme of Paganini Op. 35' is credited to Brahms, even if the theme is... well, Paganini's. So we could rename 'Show Must Go On' as 'Variations on a Theme of Deacon & Taylor, Op. ?', and it'd still be Brian's. It's a matter of interpretation actually. At the end of the day, I admit this IS indeed a coloured area, not a b/w or a grayscale one. Regarding the 90%, again, I don't mean 90% of the final product, I mean 90% of the song (CHORD-WISE). The reason: intro, first verse, second verse, first chorus, third verse, fourth verse, second chorus, first solo, third chorus, last solo/chorus are over a chord progression which was composed by Roger and John, while the middle-eight is over a chord progression composed by Dr May. In other words, off the 79.5 measures the song lasts, 70 were composed by Roger and John, which isn't 90%, but 88.05%, but close anyway ;) That doesn't deny the fact that, lyric-wise, arrangement-wise, melody-wise, the song is 90% (or more) by Brian. |
Holly2003 21.02.2008 15:03 |
Sebastian wrote: Regarding the 90%, again, I don't mean 90% of the final product, I mean 90% of the song (CHORD-WISE). The reason: intro, first verse, second verse, first chorus, third verse, fourth verse, second chorus, first solo, third chorus, last solo/chorus are over a chord progression which was composed by Roger and John, while the middle-eight is over a chord progression composed by Dr May.Can you direct me to the quote where Brian May says this? All I can see is your comment that "Brian credited John and Roger for the sequence" -- nothing about "chords", for example. Brian's early version MIGHT have been very similar to the final veriosn or it MIGHT have been dissimilar: there's no way to know unless a demo turns up or Brian says something more definite (and even if that was the case, you have said often that Brian's memory cannot be trusted). |
Legy 21.02.2008 16:58 |
John S Stuart wrote:Thanks for the compliment, but I'm really not that smart. I'm just an Anorak, as Pete Malandrone likes to call us. Hard Core Brian May fans that try to do everything the Brian May way. LOL!artemismoon wrote:artemismoon: I bow to your superior knowledge. I did not know any of this. To my untrained ears it sounds like an old tape on a non-Dolby playback system. I love the song, it's a pity that it can not be cleaned up digitally though...John S Stuart wrote:Actually, it's not tape hiss at all. It's Brian's set up, AC-30 + Treble Booster ++++ fOXX phaser. An AC-30 with a treble booster alone will hiss like crazy, and adding a fOXX phaser make it hiss even more. There's really nothing a producer can do about it but add a noise reducer and that tends to change the sound. Check out the song live and you can still hear this hiss. link The So, it's very hard to hide without drums, bass and piano. Usually Brian would use the fOXX phaser in the middle of a song, while playing solos, like BoRhap. Brian stopped using the fOXX phaser around '82, then he started using a Boss Chorus CE-1.Zebonka12 wrote: If there's bad production on any Queen album, for me it's Innuendo. Hitman is the absolute worst sounding track on the album...Anyone actually listen to 'White Man' on the 'Day At The Races' LP/ CD? How anyone can hear anything beyond the tape hiss is beyond me. drwinston wrote: I was surprised that they left it in there as well. I always guessed they were going for that "live and raw" sound, as I don't hear many overdubs on the tune. If anyone has the Brian Star Licks video, you can hear just how noisy his rig was when he had all that stuff turned on! Ahh, the old analog days...There's really nothing you can do, even in a digital format, without changing the sound of the guitar track. Brian still has an analog set up, with the exception of his delays and chorus/pitch bend racks, so his set up is still very hissy. In a live environment you really can't hear the hiss due to the audience, but it still there. In the studio, it's easier to hide because of all the other instruments, but the hiss is still there. Like I said, White Mans progression makes the hiss more noticeable. It starts off with guitar and there's nothing playing with it, so you can't hide the hiss without changing the sound of the guitar track(s). My band recently recorded in an all digital set up and you can't hide the hiss without changing the sound, which noise reducer tends to do. |
Sebastian 21.02.2008 20:42 |
Holly2003 wrote:"The Show Must Go On came from Roger and John playing the sequence and I started to put things down. At the beginning it was just this chord sequence but I had this strange feeling that it could be somehow important and I got very impassioned and went and beavered away at it. I sat down with Freddie and we decided what the theme should be and wrote the first verse. It's a long story, that song, but I always felt it would be important because we were dealing with things that were hard to talk about at the time, but in the world of music you could do it"Sebastian wrote: Regarding the 90%, again, I don't mean 90% of the final product, I mean 90% of the song (CHORD-WISE). The reason: intro, first verse, second verse, first chorus, third verse, fourth verse, second chorus, first solo, third chorus, last solo/chorus are over a chord progression which was composed by Roger and John, while the middle-eight is over a chord progression composed by Dr May.Can you direct me to the quote where Brian May says this? All I can see is your comment that "Brian credited John and Roger for the sequence" -- nothing about "chords", for example. Brian's early version MIGHT have been very similar to the final veriosn or it MIGHT have been dissimilar: there's no way to know unless a demo turns up or Brian says something more definite (and even if that was the case, you have said often that Brian's memory cannot be trusted). In this case, the sequence already incorporates the chords. And of course, my 90-10 comment is assuming that Dr May's memory was all right in that case. And it does suggest (along with other comments from him through the years) that there's NO demo from Roger's and John's sequence. |
Holly2003 22.02.2008 04:29 |
Sebastian wrote:Thanks. Now that I've seen the original quote I have a clearer idea of your analysis.Holly2003 wrote:"The Show Must Go On came from Roger and John playing the sequence and I started to put things down. At the beginning it was just this chord sequence but I had this strange feeling that it could be somehow important and I got very impassioned and went and beavered away at it. I sat down with Freddie and we decided what the theme should be and wrote the first verse. It's a long story, that song, but I always felt it would be important because we were dealing with things that were hard to talk about at the time, but in the world of music you could do it" In this case, the sequence already incorporates the chords. And of course, my 90-10 comment is assuming that Dr May's memory was all right in that case. And it does suggest (along with other comments from him through the years) that there's NO demo from Roger's and John's sequence.Sebastian wrote: Regarding the 90%, again, I don't mean 90% of the final product, I mean 90% of the song (CHORD-WISE). The reason: intro, first verse, second verse, first chorus, third verse, fourth verse, second chorus, first solo, third chorus, last solo/chorus are over a chord progression which was composed by Roger and John, while the middle-eight is over a chord progression composed by Dr May.Can you direct me to the quote where Brian May says this? All I can see is your comment that "Brian credited John and Roger for the sequence" -- nothing about "chords", for example. Brian's early version MIGHT have been very similar to the final veriosn or it MIGHT have been dissimilar: there's no way to know unless a demo turns up or Brian says something more definite (and even if that was the case, you have said often that Brian's memory cannot be trusted). |