| Sebastian 09.09.2009 19:13 |
Lately, I've corrected several bits in my website, but I'm pretty sure there are still loads more. So, anybody who wants to contribute, please feel free to do it. Posting your corrections or doubts here allows everybody to read and discuss. So far, I've corrected some info on backing vocals - Roger did sing on Champions, Brian did sing on Dear Friends, and I've added Abbey Road to the studios used in 'Magic' as well as Sterling Sound in 'Hot Space'. Anything further will be appreciated. |
| Yara 09.09.2009 22:01 |
Not exactly a correction. Or: not a correction at all. It’s just that, given the info you have gathered and the research you made, it’d be interesting to present it in different ways to both appeal to and inform fans. For instance: I always thought it’d be nice to have a section devoted to the guys’ opinions about each song. Let’s say: "White Man". Then there’d be a series of quotes beginning with the composer’s remarks - May’s own thoughts about it and, then, for instance, Freddie’s comments on it, as in some interviews Freddie used to make a sort of little review of the albums. Then Roger’s, and so on. For some songs there’d be a good amount of quotes and for others not that much - it’d be an interesting way to see how they regarded each other’s works and how their opinion eventually changed over time. It could be a reader-friendly guide to the way the band changed over time - from Freddie saying back in the middle of the 70’s that he preferred listening to Brian than to any synths, acknowledging May’s prowess as an arranger, to Brian’s own enthusiastic remarks about the possibilities opened up by more advanced keyboards and other technological innovations for the musician to expand his sound landscape. A friendly-guide to Queen and part of rock history too, I guess. It’s just an idea. I feel you have the research, you have the info, but sometimes, and I mean it in the most constructive sense, you could present it in a more appealing way, I don’t know. I hope it helps in some way. |
| cmsdrums 10.09.2009 07:21 |
Nothing to add yet, other than my appreciation and thanks for the site Cheers |
| pittrek 10.09.2009 09:23 |
Sebastian wrote: Lately, I've corrected several bits in my website, but I'm pretty sure there are still loads more. So, anybody who wants to contribute, please feel free to do it. Posting your corrections or doubts here allows everybody to read and discuss. So far, I've corrected some info on backing vocals - Roger did sing on Champions, Brian did sing on Dear Friends, and I've added Abbey Road to the studios used in 'Magic' as well as Sterling Sound in 'Hot Space'. Anything further will be appreciated. Just add the description of every channel of the leaked multi-tracks and I'll be very happy :) |
| buffypython 10.09.2009 10:57 |
Very nice new layout to the site! It looks much more organized. These aren't corrections per se, just something I noticed; the pages for Liar, Jesus, The Night Comes Down, Seven Seas of Rhye, Modern Times Rock n Roll, Mad The Swine, and Son & Daughter aren't opening up. Also, on the Queen II page, you post that "they sequenced the tracks in blocks of songwriters: Maylor and Mercury." Did you mean to type "Taylor" or do you mean a combination of songs from Taylor & May (clever name if so). And, not so much a correction as a question: who were the kids singing in Teo Torriate and are any of the boys singing during that particular section? And, in Millionaire Waltz, it might be good to note the similarity to I'm A Little Black Rain-Cloud from Winnie the Pooh. I believe that was on BD before. I'm not sure if he deliberately took it from WtP (actually I think it was from a classical composer) but it's still note worthy. And, probably to the screams of most Queenies here, you might consider putting some Q+PR info in there. Otherwise and in spite of this, a very thorough and gorgeous Queen site with more info and appreciation than you can shake a stick at! I'm hoping the Good Doctor knows about this! |
| Sebastian 10.09.2009 13:37 |
Thanks for your comments so far There are still loads of things to be transferred from older versions to the current one, including the Waltz thing (I want to add sheets to compare more thoroughly). Quotes: I'm adding them slowly, including a link. For instance: link Links on the 'Queen' album: a huge blunder... got to correct it this weekend. Meanwhile, change the '7' by '1' in the URL bar. About guitar vs synths: It's important to note that: 1. Brian was, most of the time, the one who PLAYED the choirs, but not necessarily the one who ARRANGED them. That was input from all four, and more often than not, the creator of the song. 2. Although both the band and the fans tend to label Queen (especially their early work) as guitars+vocals, it's unfair: drums, bass and piano are VERY important. That's one of the main purposes of the site, at least for the foreseeable future. Multitrack thing: Yes, I'll add that, as soon as I proof-read them and plan a good layout. So far there's only KQ: link. Coming up next: Studios used for each particular song (the ones that can be inferred, at least). Maylor is indeed a portmanteu, but it wasn't my idea: I read it and incorporated it to my everyday vocabulary. Teo: Apparently it's more a 'female' choir than a 'kid' one, but I agree the topic does deserve more research. Non-Queen things (including No-One But You and beyond): If you want info about them, I'm afraid you're gonna have to look it up in other websites (e.g. the magnificent Queenpedia), rather than mine. OTOH, I may add info on solo albums next year (and maybe collaborations + guest appearances after the World Cup - depending on who the winner is), but so far I've never listened to 'TCR' and I don't plan to either. I'd rather focus on Queen instead ;) |
| mooghead 10.09.2009 14:07 |
I know you mentioned that you heard Roger sing in Champions after hearing the stripped version but I am curious to know why you thought he didn't before hearing it? Is it just because you couldn't make his voice out on the published version? If so does that mean parts of the site are based on opinion rather than fact? |
| Yara 10.09.2009 15:03 |
Sebastian wrote: ...depending on who the winner is... :op And whom shall I cheer for so that you add all this to the website? : -)) Thanks for the website, as always. If you ever need help with scores and song transcriptions in general, just tell me and I see what I can do. SIRGH! Where’s SirGH? He disappears and I have to shout for him. SirGH needs to do some updating there too, though I agree many entries have already achieved the optimum state. Let me tell you, SirGH, as your manager, I think you should foray into new territory while advancing the basic goals of the website. I mean...I miss sound bits. It’s nice to illustrate some points and you as a musician can introduce some slightly technical vocabulary without scaring off the people, you know how to do it. You’re talking about "Death On Two Legs" from X, 78. Suppose you want to illustrate a point: you can add a link to the sound bit which is being referred to in the article. People will benefit from it a lot, even as part of an informal, friendly music education - knowing, through the work of their beloved band, how certain chord patterns sound and so on. It may get people interested in doing music, I don’t know. The same goes for SEBASTIAN: plenty of sound bits to illustrate the points and a more interactive, with links to parts of songs, illustrating some basic concepts as bridge, middle-eight sections, basic chord progressions. I don’t accept this argument of "having a life". It’s such a poor excuse! As if people like yourself were allowed to have a life! You see, I have wonderful ideas for other people’s websites. Maybe it’s about time for me to create my own and stop annoying website owners with suggestions. :op |
| panasonic 10.09.2009 20:06 |
I'd just like to say well done to the creator of the website (Sebastian), a lot of work has obviously gone into it! In my opinion (and in no way can I prove this), it sounds to me like the end 'choir' of All God's People has to be by Freddie, Brian and Roger. I am sure I can hear characteristics of all three of them and it is a big comparison to the first part of the song that clearly contains only Freddie's vocals. That end 'choir' is one of the few 80s/90s choirs that really harks back to much of their ANATO/ADATR style. |
| rhyeking 10.09.2009 20:47 |
Good stuff! |
| FriedChicken 11.09.2009 07:29 |
Too bad your own stubbornness is in the way of listening to some good music, Sebastian ;-) Anyway, good work with the website.. I've said it over and over again, but it's the truth! |
| Togg 11.09.2009 08:05 |
Is Seb really serious when he says he has never listened to TCR.... Why in Gods name not? Regardless of your view on the joint partnership why would you not at least listen to the album? Surely 50% of Old Queen would spark enough interest no? As John Lennon once sang...Strange days indeed..... |
| Yara 11.09.2009 10:00 |
No. Come on. Sebastian has a great website. Using this or that line of his post to make personal innuendos or simply to provoke him is not helpful at all. People are entitled to, of course, but I fail to see the point! Let’s try help him make it as accurate and helpful as possible, because that was his intention when he started the thread. I liked the messages of those who took their time to drop some words of encouragement too, just like Fried Chicken and Rhyeking’s. That was lovely!!! I’m spreading the "venom", as dear Olivier says. : -))) I tell about Sebastian and SirGH’s websites to all Queen fans I meet out there because I think both websites are not only helpful but very entertaining too. At least to me! Rock on, guys! |
| Sebastian 11.09.2009 10:13 |
> If so does that mean parts of the site are based on opinion rather than fact? Of course! Unless I've got footage of each song being recorded so I can see who recorded which part and where and using what, I've got to resort to other sorts of sources (including, of course, my own ears). > plenty of sound bits to illustrate the points and a more interactive, with links to parts of songs, illustrating some basic concepts as bridge, middle-eight sections, basic chord progressions. Good idea, which may see the light of day sooner or later. I may add my own YT channel someday, and add those bits there. We shall see... > I don’t accept this argument of "having a life". It’s such a poor excuse! While I've only got 1% of the free time I used to in 2003, I have a hundred times more motivation and seriousness. > Maybe it’s about time for me to create my own and stop annoying website owners with suggestions. :op That's how 'Bechstein Debauchery' started, by the way. > In my opinion (and in no way can I prove this), it sounds to me like the end 'choir' of All God's People has to be by Freddie, Brian and Roger. D'you mean 'incredible'? If so, yes: I also think it may be. Got to listen to it carefully and eventually add a (temporary) conclusion. > Too bad your own stubbornness is in the way of listening to some good music, Sebastian ;-) It's not about stubbornness. Do you think I'd cover my ears if a song came on the radio, or I'd storm out of a record store featuring TCR, coming back later to blow it up? No - I'm not AGAINST TCR, I simply COULDN'T CARE LESS about it. If someday I'm on the bus and it sounds, I'll listen to it (assuming I haven't got to get off before it finishes). But, if I get the choice of listening to ANATO and then TCR, I prefer to listen to ANATO twice. > Is Seb really serious when he says he has never listened to TCR.... Why in Gods name not? Already explained. > Regardless of your view on the joint partnership why would you not at least listen to the album? 30 minutes of my life I can use for other things. > Surely 50% of Old Queen would spark enough interest no? Not in my case. Again: nothing against their partnership, their musical skills (which are huge, including Paul's) or their marketing strategies. I'm simply not interested in it. > As John Lennon once sang...Strange days indeed..... John Lennon is one of the artists I could enjoy listening to in the 30 minutes of my life I'd spend listening to TCR. |
| 4 x Vision 11.09.2009 12:06 |
Sebastian wrote: > Is Seb really serious when he says he has never listened to TCR.... Why in Gods name not? Already explained. > Regardless of your view on the joint partnership why would you not at least listen to the album? 30 minutes of my life I can use for other things. Me thinks your telling porkies here. There is no way someone as intersted in Queen as yourself hasn't listened to this album even once... NO WAY... Especailly as you have a gift for explaining the intricacies of Queen material so well and have such a clear passion for the band. (NOT SARCASM). |
| Sebastian 11.09.2009 12:11 |
I'm interested in Queen music, not in Brian + Paul + Roger. Likewise, I've only listened to 'Mr Bad Guy' once, and to Body Language twice (one of which was drunk so it doesn't count - but I even enjoyed it). |
| mooghead 11.09.2009 12:17 |
I often thought the website existed as some sort of point of reference, as in factual. I think what you have just revealed about parts of it being down to what you interpret with your own ears undermines its usefulness. As for Seb not hearing TCR. I am 33 years old and bought my first Queen album when I was 10 with all the money I had in the world (Live Magic if you must know) and went on to become a serious collector and am not remotely interested in anything to do with QPR. I heard CLebrity when it was on Al Murray and thats it. Had they not had called themselves Queen I would have given it a go. I understand their reasons for doing so but think its wrong. |
| Sebastian 11.09.2009 13:11 |
mooghead wrote: I often thought the website existed as some sort of point of reference, as in factual. I think what you have just revealed about parts of it being down to what you interpret with your own ears undermines its usefulness. A 'factual' web can't exist since even the people who were there make mistakes and misremember stuff. That's precisely why it's important to keep updating and correcting the info whenever new data are discussed or revealed (e.g. Dr May using a different guitar for a Flash's Theme reprise, info that I haven't updated yet BTW). Oh, and by the way: I haven't 'just revealed about parts of it being down to what (I) interpret with (my) own ears' - AFAIK, it was never a secret. As for TCR: there's no way I can (or mean to) convince anybody not to listen to it; likewise, there's no way anybody can convince me to listen to it. I think the best is to agree to disagree. Same with NOBY and other stuff. Keep in mind that, for that same reason, I can't (and don't want to) have an opinion about TCR and whether it's good or not - I don't know, and I couldn't care less. For the World Cup, I suppose I'm supporting England although I'd also like the Netherlands to win at least once. |
| Angeline 11.09.2009 18:02 |
Sebastian wrote:mooghead wrote: I often thought the website existed as some sort of point of reference, as in factual. I think what you have just revealed about parts of it being down to what you interpret with your own ears undermines its usefulness.A 'factual' web can't exist since even the people who were there make mistakes and misremember stuff. That's precisely why it's important to keep updating and correcting the info whenever new data are discussed or revealed (e.g. Dr May using a different guitar for a Flash's Theme reprise, info that I haven't updated yet BTW). Oh, and by the way: I haven't 'just revealed about parts of it being down to what (I) interpret with (my) own ears' - AFAIK, it was never a secret. As for TCR: there's no way I can (or mean to) convince anybody not to listen to it; likewise, there's no way anybody can convince me to listen to it. I think the best is to agree to disagree. Same with NOBY and other stuff. Keep in mind that, for that same reason, I can't (and don't want to) have an opinion about TCR and whether it's good or not - I don't know, and I couldn't care less. For the World Cup, I suppose I'm supporting England although I'd also like the Netherlands to win at least once. His website is wonderful - I'm really confused as to why a simple request for improvements has led to some criticism that isn't well thought out. One could argue all day about the difference between fact and opinion - also well-informed opinion can reveal interesting facts even if it turns out to be slightly wrong. |
| Sebastian 11.09.2009 19:36 |
The broken links from the debut album (a huge blunder on my side) have been corrected, as well as The Loser in the End. Enjoy! As for fact vs opinion, I think that, for BD, a datum can only be 100% factual if there's a filmed evidence that 'x' instrument was played by 'x' person during 'x' bit of 'x' song (e.g. John using the Fender Elite on One Vision). And it can only be 100% wrong if there's a filmed evidence that 'x' wasn't used... (e.g. if I claimed John had played a Fender Jazz on One Vision) or if there's any chronological or physical impediment for the claim to be true (e.g. Brian couldn't have played a Korg M1 on Flash because they didn't exist). Everything else is in some grey (or coloured) area, since, as I said earlier, even a direct claim coming from a person who was there can be totally wrong (e.g. Dr May saying Master-Stroke was done at Wessex), or probably/partially wrong (e.g. David Richards saying Ga Ga was recorded in Munich) or it can contradict others (e.g. the Under Pressure bass-line). While I can't do miracles or provide a 100% error-proof research, what I can (and want to) at least try is to offer a well-organised and well-written research offering: * Detailed info about who-sang, who-played and who-wrote what. * Further details than those provided by the liner notes (e.g. 'II' lists John on acoustic guitar, but it doesn't say where). * Corrections over stuff that was wrong or missing in the original liner notes (e.g. Trident not being mentioned in 'Opera', probably because of their animosity at the time). * The odd 'scholar' piece of info, sort of tailored to musicians (e.g. intervals, modulations). It's absolutely NOT a lame 'Queen are gods, all the rest are shite' thing, it's not an offensive 'I hate PR and want to re-write history' crusade, it's not an 'I claim to know everything and this should/shall be your Bible from now on' self-gratification collection and it's not a blog. It does, of course, include the odd (in)direct criticism (e.g. read the first couple of lines in link, the odd (well-deserved IMO) praise to their musical abilities and the odd nod to my own tastes (link includes comments about football and the Bee Gees), but they're only secondary and auxiliary. What 'BD' should become, some day (one day), is a reliable (as much as possible) point of reference for: * People who want to know more about the songs Queen (i.e. 1970-1991 plus the odd 'MiH' remake) did. * Musicians (amateurs to experts) who want or need some practical examples of gambits (e.g. the middle-eight in Sail Away Sweet Sister is a gr8 lesson on tension and resolution - and of course singing). * People who want to make a similar website about other acts (including, of course BM+RT+PR). Come to think about it, I should add the above lines to my web (in the index). What d'you think? |
| Jan78 11.09.2009 22:18 |
As to the trivia about the song Innuendo: I think it has been discussed on here before that the pattern is not just similar to Am I Evil, but that it in fact relates to this (link, see the part "Popular Music". |
| mooghead 12.09.2009 04:36 |
Angeline wrote:Sebastian wrote:His website is wonderful - I'm really confused as to why a simple request for improvements has led to some criticism that isn't well thought out. I'm not critisising, I am just saying I thought it was fact based. Of course a factual web page can exist, as long as it contains just fact, anything that is a risk of being 'misremembered' doesnt go inmooghead wrote: I often thought the website existed as some sort of point of reference, as in factual. I think what you have just revealed about parts of it being down to what you interpret with your own ears undermines its usefulness.A 'factual' web can't exist since even the people who were there make mistakes and misremember stuff. That's precisely why it's important to keep updating and correcting the info whenever new data are discussed or revealed (e.g. Dr May using a different guitar for a Flash's Theme reprise, info that I haven't updated yet BTW). Oh, and by the way: I haven't 'just revealed about parts of it being down to what (I) interpret with (my) own ears' - AFAIK, it was never a secret. As for TCR: there's no way I can (or mean to) convince anybody not to listen to it; likewise, there's no way anybody can convince me to listen to it. I think the best is to agree to disagree. Same with NOBY and other stuff. Keep in mind that, for that same reason, I can't (and don't want to) have an opinion about TCR and whether it's good or not - I don't know, and I couldn't care less. For the World Cup, I suppose I'm supporting England although I'd also like the Netherlands to win at least once. |
| Sebastian 12.09.2009 07:39 |
If it couldn't contain anything that had the risk of being misremembered, it would be a virtually empty website - only the title of each song, the credit and the date of release could go in since we wouldn't be able to tell for sure if certain bit was played with the RS or Dr May used a different guitar just there, etc. Am I Evil takes the melodic motif from Mars, but not the beat. To be fair, that beat (also similar to Ravel's Bolero) was probably 'invented' loads of times by different people in different moments. |
| Yara 12.09.2009 10:45 |
Easy to resolve this problem and make a plainly factual website. All Sebastian has to do is write FACT! after each sentence. ; -))) |
| mooghead 13.09.2009 17:59 |
Thats...... 8 sentences. |
| Sebastian 14.09.2009 09:17 |
Mooghead: You can put your own factual website if you want. It's not my fault that you just discovered something thousands of people already knew 6+ years ago. |
| 4 x Vision 14.09.2009 10:18 |
This is not a criticism, but your website is fascinating (even for folk like me who have no formal musical education of any sort). Surely by adding TCR you can test your own knowledge and skills and add an intersting section on how the remaining Queen members have grown or just rely on the same old techniques they used on previous Queen albums? I'd love to know what parts are driven by Maylor instead of PR. I'd love to know how they are involved in each song and how much influence they had on the album. Doesn't this make sense Sebastian? (It's your website and i know you've got every right to add what you please, but give it a few minutes of thought before replying please, as your posts are as interesting as Sir GH, FriedChicken, PG, John Stuart, Yara and so on and so on). |
| Sebastian 14.09.2009 10:28 |
> This is not a criticism, but your website is fascinating (even for folk like me who have no formal musical education of any sort). Neither do I, by the way. > Surely by adding TCR you can test your own knowledge and skills I don't need to 'test (my) own knowledge', this is not a university. And if I wanted to 'test my own knowledge', there are loads of albums to do so: ANATO, ADATR (there's always a lot more to say about those), and I'm way more interested in those ones. > and add an intersting section on how the remaining Queen members have grown or just rely on the same old techniques they used on previous Queen albums? BD's a website about Queen, not about Maylor or their post-Queen activities. Interesting sections still to add are many: quotes, notation, trademarks, contemporaries, arrangements, classical influences... so there's still a lot of work to do concerning the 1970-1991 era. As I said earlier, people who want to know about TCR can visit other websites, not mine. > I'd love to know what parts are driven by Maylor instead of PR. And I'd love to have access to all multi-tracks ever issued by any band I'm interested in. But we can't have everything. Although in this particular case, you can have your own website and analyse those details... it's not 'easy peasy', but it's not too hard either. > I'd love to know how they are involved in each song and how much influence they had on the album. Great! But, again, for that you're gonna have to make the research yourself or wait for it to appear somewhere else. I'm only interested in Queen music for BD, not Maylor+Rodgers, not Maylor+Lambert and not Deacy+Gregory. > Doesn't this make sense Sebastian? It does... but you're asking the wrong person. Why should I listen to somebody who was attacking my posts a couple of days ago, and then accused me of telling porkies? > It's your website and i know you've got every right to add what you please, but give it a few minutes of thought before replying please, as your posts are as interesting as Sir GH, FriedChicken, PG, John Stuart, Yara and so on and so on. Maybe you should ask one of them to make a website on TCR. It surely would be interesting. |
| 4 x Vision 14.09.2009 12:38 |
Sebastian wrote: > This is not a criticism, but your website is fascinating (even for folk like me who have no formal musical education of any sort). Neither do I, by the way. > Surely by adding TCR you can test your own knowledge and skills I don't need to 'test (my) own knowledge', this is not a university. And if I wanted to 'test my own knowledge', there are loads of albums to do so: ANATO, ADATR (there's always a lot more to say about those), and I'm way more interested in those ones. > and add an intersting section on how the remaining Queen members have grown or just rely on the same old techniques they used on previous Queen albums? BD's a website about Queen, not about Maylor or their post-Queen activities. Interesting sections still to add are many: quotes, notation, trademarks, contemporaries, arrangements, classical influences... so there's still a lot of work to do concerning the 1970-1991 era. As I said earlier, people who want to know about TCR can visit other websites, not mine. > I'd love to know what parts are driven by Maylor instead of PR. And I'd love to have access to all multi-tracks ever issued by any band I'm interested in. But we can't have everything. Although in this particular case, you can have your own website and analyse those details... it's not 'easy peasy', but it's not too hard either. > I'd love to know how they are involved in each song and how much influence they had on the album. Great! But, again, for that you're gonna have to make the research yourself or wait for it to appear somewhere else. I'm only interested in Queen music for BD, not Maylor+Rodgers, not Maylor+Lambert and not Deacy+Gregory. > Doesn't this make sense Sebastian? It does... but you're asking the wrong person. Why should I listen to somebody who was attacking my posts a couple of days ago, and then accused me of telling porkies? > It's your website and i know you've got every right to add what you please, but give it a few minutes of thought before replying please, as your posts are as interesting as Sir GH, FriedChicken, PG, John Stuart, Yara and so on and so on. Maybe you should ask one of them to make a website on TCR. It surely would be interesting. Genuinely sorry for the "porkies" remark. I didn't think it was that big of a deal, obviously was to you. Fried Chicken said "Too bad your own stubbornness is in the way of listening to some good music, Sebastian ;-)". I wasn't too sure what he meant then... I do now. (Sorry for using your quote here FC). The Cosmos Rocks is a Queen album though, it's a pity you can't accept that, cos it's not that bad. I don't hold grudgies by the way... I enjoy your posts. If you feel you have to analyse and defend every remark given towards you then so be it, if i offended you I apologize. Best of luck with your Queen website. |
| Yara 14.09.2009 22:13 |
Van Basten 9 wrote:Sebastian wrote: > This is not a criticism, but your website is fascinating (even for folk like me who have no formal musical education of any sort). Neither do I, by the way. > Surely by adding TCR you can test your own knowledge and skills I don't need to 'test (my) own knowledge', this is not a university. And if I wanted to 'test my own knowledge', there are loads of albums to do so: ANATO, ADATR (there's always a lot more to say about those), and I'm way more interested in those ones. > and add an intersting section on how the remaining Queen members have grown or just rely on the same old techniques they used on previous Queen albums? BD's a website about Queen, not about Maylor or their post-Queen activities. Interesting sections still to add are many: quotes, notation, trademarks, contemporaries, arrangements, classical influences... so there's still a lot of work to do concerning the 1970-1991 era. As I said earlier, people who want to know about TCR can visit other websites, not mine. > I'd love to know what parts are driven by Maylor instead of PR. And I'd love to have access to all multi-tracks ever issued by any band I'm interested in. But we can't have everything. Although in this particular case, you can have your own website and analyse those details... it's not 'easy peasy', but it's not too hard either. > I'd love to know how they are involved in each song and how much influence they had on the album. Great! But, again, for that you're gonna have to make the research yourself or wait for it to appear somewhere else. I'm only interested in Queen music for BD, not Maylor+Rodgers, not Maylor+Lambert and not Deacy+Gregory. > Doesn't this make sense Sebastian? It does... but you're asking the wrong person. Why should I listen to somebody who was attacking my posts a couple of days ago, and then accused me of telling porkies? > It's your website and i know you've got every right to add what you please, but give it a few minutes of thought before replying please, as your posts are as interesting as Sir GH, FriedChicken, PG, John Stuart, Yara and so on and so on. Maybe you should ask one of them to make a website on TCR. It surely would be interesting.Genuinely sorry for the "porkies" remark. I didn't think it was that big of a deal, obviously was to you. Fried Chicken said "Too bad your own stubbornness is in the way of listening to some good music, Sebastian ;-)". I wasn't too sure what he meant then... I do now. (Sorry for using your quote here FC). The Cosmos Rocks is a Queen album though, it's a pity you can't accept that, cos it's not that bad. I don't hold grudgies by the way... I enjoy your posts. If you feel you have to analyse and defend every remark given towards you then so be it, if i offended you I apologize. Best of luck with your Queen website. Way to go. Always nice to see a gesture of apology. ; -))) |
| Sebastian 14.09.2009 23:44 |
I honestly don't care about porkies per se, but about what they represent: intolerance and prejudices. The best way to make my point is through an example: 'A' is a huge Queen fan, s/he's got a CD collection outnumbering mine by hundreds, s/he's spent a fortune in Queen stuff, but s/he doesn't give a damn about the songwriting process for Don't Try So Hard. If s/he told me 'I don't care about that', should I reply with an agressive 'methinks you're telling porkies, there's NO WAY (capitalised as you put it) a person wouldn't care about that!'. No... that'd be ridiculous: s/he may be a big Queen fan, and still don't care about that side of their output. Now, I've never considered myself a Queen fan (or a Beatles fan, or a Spice fan, or an ABBA fan, or a Green Day fan, etc), but I do have a lot of interest about their music and their work. Does it mean there's 'no way' I haven't listened to TCR? No - because, as a matter of fact, I haven't, and I really don't have any interest in it (likewise, I've never listened to Angeline, a song that also includes two Queen members who, by the way, are my two favourites). The whole 'stubborn' point is also quite off IMO: I'd be stubborn if I: * Covered my ears and started to scream bloody murder every time a CR song came on the radio or a public place. * Left the mentioned public place. * Started a campaign to murder Maylor because of their decisions. But I'm not doing any of those. I'm simply a person who's not interested in buying or downloading an album. There are literally thousands of albums I've never heard, TCR happens to be one of them; and there are literally hundreds (at least) or albums featuring big names (e.g. Alan Parson's latest release) that I'm not interested in hearing, and TCR also happens to be one of them. Simple as that. As for it being or not a Queen album: this isn't an absolute matter. Some people may think it is (and they've got all the right to do so), some people may think it's not (and we've got all the right to do so). Same with other stuff like compilations, live albums or even 'Flash' and 'Made in Heaven'. Another example: I visit Ultimate-Queen a lot; but do you see me trying to convince its webmaster to delete any info about TCR just because I don't consider it a Queen album? No, of course not. Likewise, my website doesn't (and won't) include TCR - Agree? Fine; Disagree? Fine. But I appreciate if you respected my POV (regardless of your agreeing or disagreeing with it). Last but not least, I simply couldn't make a good section about TCR (even if I wanted to), because it would need me to: * Be an expert (or at least a little knowledgeable) about Paul Rodgers - which I'm not. * Be an expert (or at least a little knowledgeable) about 21st century e-keyboards - which I'm not. * Listen to the album - which I haven't and don't plan to. I don't know yet (even though my BD web has been well-received and it is a good research, even with all the things it needs to improve on) if I'm the right person to comment on Queen discography (1970-1991, that is), but I DO know I'm NOT the right person to comment on TCR. Again, there are thousands of albums I wouldn't be interested in including or researching, TCR's one of them. |
| 4 x Vision 15.09.2009 22:21 |
Sebastian wrote: I honestly don't care about porkies per se, but about what they represent: intolerance and prejudices. The best way to make my point is through an example: 'A' is a huge Queen fan, s/he's got a CD collection outnumbering mine by hundreds, s/he's spent a fortune in Queen stuff, but s/he doesn't give a damn about the songwriting process for Don't Try So Hard. If s/he told me 'I don't care about that', should I reply with an agressive 'methinks you're telling porkies, there's NO WAY (capitalised as you put it) a person wouldn't care about that!'. No... that'd be ridiculous: s/he may be a big Queen fan, and still don't care about that side of their output. Now, I've never considered myself a Queen fan (or a Beatles fan, or a Spice fan, or an ABBA fan, or a Green Day fan, etc), but I do have a lot of interest about their music and their work. Does it mean there's 'no way' I haven't listened to TCR? No - because, as a matter of fact, I haven't, and I really don't have any interest in it (likewise, I've never listened to Angeline, a song that also includes two Queen members who, by the way, are my two favourites). The whole 'stubborn' point is also quite off IMO: I'd be stubborn if I: * Covered my ears and started to scream bloody murder every time a CR song came on the radio or a public place. * Left the mentioned public place. * Started a campaign to murder Maylor because of their decisions. But I'm not doing any of those. I'm simply a person who's not interested in buying or downloading an album. There are literally thousands of albums I've never heard, TCR happens to be one of them; and there are literally hundreds (at least) or albums featuring big names (e.g. Alan Parson's latest release) that I'm not interested in hearing, and TCR also happens to be one of them. Simple as that. As for it being or not a Queen album: this isn't an absolute matter. Some people may think it is (and they've got all the right to do so), some people may think it's not (and we've got all the right to do so). Same with other stuff like compilations, live albums or even 'Flash' and 'Made in Heaven'. Another example: I visit Ultimate-Queen a lot; but do you see me trying to convince its webmaster to delete any info about TCR just because I don't consider it a Queen album? No, of course not. Likewise, my website doesn't (and won't) include TCR - Agree? Fine; Disagree? Fine. But I appreciate if you respected my POV (regardless of your agreeing or disagreeing with it). Last but not least, I simply couldn't make a good section about TCR (even if I wanted to), because it would need me to: * Be an expert (or at least a little knowledgeable) about Paul Rodgers - which I'm not. * Be an expert (or at least a little knowledgeable) about 21st century e-keyboards - which I'm not. * Listen to the album - which I haven't and don't plan to. I don't know yet (even though my BD web has been well-received and it is a good research, even with all the things it needs to improve on) if I'm the right person to comment on Queen discography (1970-1991, that is), but I DO know I'm NOT the right person to comment on TCR. Again, there are thousands of albums I wouldn't be interested in including or researching, TCR's one of them. That's cool. I hope you do accept my apology still. You've made your point on TCR. (I still think you could do a very good job on breaking it down as you have the other Queen albums/songs, but I respect your reasons for not doing so). |
| Sebastian 16.09.2009 09:57 |
Of course I accept it, no problem about that. |
| Yara 16.09.2009 12:30 |
: -))) [*happy] |
| panasonic 16.09.2009 19:22 |
Sebastian - re All God's People, yes those vocals are heard best in the word "incredible". But that whole Chorus at the end - it is a marked difference from the rest of the Freddie-only voices which I think sounds like the three of them. |
| Sebastian 16.09.2009 21:43 |
Yes, you're right. I'll correct that soon(er or later). So far I did add some info on Bijou: link |
| 4 x Vision 17.09.2009 12:03 |
Sebastian wrote: Yes, you're right. I'll correct that soon(er or later). So far I did add some info on Bijou: http://sebastian.queenconcerts.com/e-bijou.htm Glad I checked this out, cos that Jeff B song is fantastic listening. I've never really given him much of a chance tbh |
| Sebastian 02.11.2009 23:44 |
A big update's coming soon. Don't worry, it's not a design change, and I'm not starting from scratch... I'm simply correcting loads of details and elaborating on some bits and pieces for particular songs. Thanks to all who've sent additional details to me both via e-mail and here. For the upcoming months I expect 'Bechstein Debauchery' to incorporate: * Tracksheets for each of the multi's. * Some of the things earlier BD versions had and I wouldn't like to see gone forever (e.g. stats, the seven 'no' analysis). * More visuals: pix of the instruments and engineers, maps of the studios and tours, etc. * 'Myth & Legend' stuff. * How many voices, guitars, keys et al each song contains. * Links to the Purposegames and Sporcle quizzes I've been creating lately. * More sourced quotes. And hopefully, some time in 2010, I'll include at least one of the following: * A forum (I can't and don't want to compete against this one, it'd simply be a more musicological-oriented group). * New platforms (YT, Facebook, Twitter). * Some sort of 'music for dummies' handbook, using pieces from the Queen catalogue for examples and case-studies. * Tops 10's (e.g. songs using the most/least instruments, songs that probably cost the most/least, etc). * Something about the visual side of the band (videos, album covers, the logo). Should any of you have any (sensible) suggestion, please feel free to post it (here or privately, your call). |
| FriedChicken 03.11.2009 07:09 |
I recently did analysis of the works of Ennio Morricone to look for specific techniques that he uses, trademarks if you wish. It would be cool to do something like this for especially Brian and Freddie, who I consider composers, rather than just songwriters. Since most of their music is so complex they should've had some kind of template of working, and not just taking a guitar or piano and see what comes out. Music written in the latter way wouldn't come out with lots of modulations. |
| Sebastian 03.11.2009 10:11 |
A couple of years ago Mike Moran did some sort of lecture (in Montreux, I think) about Freddie as composer. I wasn't there and have never been able to know what he said. But it'd be interesting to contact him about it (although TBH, if I met him, I'd ask first about 'New Tricks'). |
| Sebastian 20.12.2009 07:58 |
A big update was just made: the design didn't change, but the background did, and I finally got rid of the annoying chess-board tables (they were literally blinding me), corrected loads and loads of mistakes (there are still many left, I'm sure), added several photographs and added some detailed info on some studios, and some more general about others. Enjoy! |
| xiao zhu 23.12.2009 05:29 |
Hi Sebastian, thanks for your great website. Will you add the single B-sides? Maybe I haven't paid enough attention... |
| Marcos Napier 27.12.2009 11:46 |
You asked for some criticism, and here's my 0.00002 cents. I had to move from my retirement to try to help you with this incredible amount of information you have with a very humble suggestion. There will always be those that will criticize your work in terms of the information that's there - "Oh there's a typo here" and stuff like that (and other useless criticisms like the lack of TCR info). It is, to me, irrelevant. Even when there are some minor mistakes (and I'm sure there are some somewhere). I think even the band members themselves probably don't recall with extreme detail everything that happens. It's been 40 years anyway. Organizing such a huge amount of information isn't easy, perhaps it's as difficult as collect it. And also displaying them in a good way or in a way that everyone will enjoy or think it's the best isn't an easy task as well, some will always prefer it to be classified in some odd way. But that's not the point of my suggestion. You can't please everyone at once. I honestly think you should get rid of these DHTML/Javascript way of displaying the infos of the clickable links, in these small white pop-up things. Or else, put some way to close these "mini-pages" that appear when you click a link. If you're using Javascript, that's easy. Or you could use a simple mouseover, to display the info just when you roll over the link. As it is now, if you click even a single link in any page, some of the other links get visually blocked (even in large monitors) and can't be clicked again unless you refresh the page (or did I miss something? Firefox and IE seems to be the same for me, there's no hidden "close window" link or something). IMHO, the best way (although not the easiest... but huge sites tend to have these problems) would be to have individual pages for each of these links, the traditional way. It's the best way for sites with a lot of content. And in these pages, you can put all the info for that specific equipment/producer/song/whatever, without space limitations. The way it is now, even if you make your browser font bigger, the text is cut and it's ruined. For example, for a page for a certain amp you could add a short description pretty much as it is now, some pictures, and say "this amp was used in this and this songs" (but this is already implied when you click a song name, for example). Or "this guitar was used with alternate tuning here and here and here", and it can be further enriched with more details as you wish or as you find some more info. All this in an individual page of its own for that specific subject, instead of clogging the page with these white popups. Will it be a hard work? Not really. Plus I think with the system you have now you probably already have "mini pages" of each of these links and their descriptions already typed anyway, all you would have to do is concentrate them all in one link about the subject and fix the links to the "new" page. Just instead of displaying the small white ugly thing, it will appear in a new browser page. Also, the way it is, with the need of refreshing the page to clean the mess, you also stress your server, sending lots of requests and (maybe) making it slower than it should. A site with such good reading and information as yours can't be ruined by some odd HTML. |
| Sebastian 28.12.2009 00:16 |
The pop-up windows can be closed by clicking on the link again. But yes, there are loads of things to be corrected and extended. |
| agrasso 28.12.2009 11:14 |
Here's my 2 cents about your site: for me it was better in its "old" version, where for every song there was a lot of infos that now seems to miss in this new version (or at least are "condensed"); in fact I still have saved on my HD the "old" pages and others that I was missing I tried to recatch them through Internet Archives (although I still miss them quite a few...I don't know if yourself or someone else can help me to find them). Apart from that, in my humble opinion Freddie does backing vocals in I'm in love with my car, while you state (in both the old and new version of his website) that is Roger and Roger alone. What does everyone else think? |
| Sebastian 29.05.2010 08:48 |
Updated some corrections including loads of BV's and some equipment stuff. |
| andreas_mercury 29.05.2010 13:52 |
it is a good site but i think your analysis approach would be so good to see your judgement of the songs you consider to be not-Queen, even when they are actually queen. could you make a non-Queen section to keep yourself happy and then analyise those songs as an exercise? |
| Sebastian 29.05.2010 23:31 |
There's something that could make me way happier: not making such section. So, that's the way it'll remain. |
| andreas_mercury 30.05.2010 03:20 |
but this is only making you to seem like a small minded penis-eater and not a great mind of music, which you could be someday when you grow up and think to the music rather of what you 'like' or 'don't like' that is kindergarden stuff you are acting foolish. |
| Sebastian 30.05.2010 06:49 |
Not adding a section I'm not interested in doesn't make me small-minded. Not adding a section I'm not interested in doesn't make me penis-eater. Not adding a section I'm not interested is not kindergarten stuff. Not adding a section I'm not interested is not acting foolish. Adding a section I'm not interested in doesn't make me a great mind of music. Calling a person 'penis-eater' just because he hasn't (and won't) add TCR to a website IS kindergarten stuff. Calling a person 'penis-eater' just because he hasn't (and won't) add TCR to a website IS acting foolish. BD doesn't only contain the songs I like, it does contain loads of songs I don't like (e.g. Get Down Make Love). I'm not saying anything against post-MIH projects. I'm not demonising Maylor for working with other artists. I'm not offending or insulting anybody who likes their projects. All I'm saying is: if you want to read about their solo activities on my website, just hang on a couple of months, as I plan to add those sections; if you want to read about B-Sides, hang in there, I'm getting to it slowly but steadily. If you want info on demos and stuff, my website's not the place to visit. If you want info on NOBY, TCR and alike, my website's not the place to find that. You can go to some of the excellent websites around like Queenpedia or Ultimatequeen. If you can't understand it, there's nothing wrong with that. But if you feel you've got to insult me because I don't want to add post-MIH things, then you do have a big problem, which has nothing to do with me. There's something very important called RESPECT. So please, respect the fact I'm NOT interested in The Cosmos Rocks (never heard it, TBH), and as such, I won't include it on BD. Many people disagree (and they've got all the right to do so), many people agree (and they've got all the right to do so). By insulting me you're not gonna convince me. |
| andreas_mercury 30.05.2010 07:20 |
i did not even call you a small minded penis eater, to my words I said it make you SEEM like one .... which is fact, you give wrong impressions with such silly petty ideas when in truth you are smart man |
| Sebastian 30.05.2010 09:32 |
So everybody who doesn't have a website with TCR on it seems like a penis eater? Now THAT'S silly, THAT'S petty, THAT'S small minded and THAT'S foolish. |
| andreas_mercury 30.05.2010 09:40 |
those are your words and never mine, you leave out all kinds of factors. maybe the site is written before TCR was released and simple hasn't been updated with the relevent info? you would love it to be so easy if i was just some guy who hated every web master on the internet but no, i dont hate any of them or you. your reasons for not including some songs that are queen is just kiddie stuff, if i am writing encyclopedia about american presidents i can't lie to people to say there was only 40 just because i did not like bush nixon garfield and reagan, i must include them all even against my own tastes.... you can cry to sleep and say some songs don't exist but they are all. made in heaven is queen album, FACT - you just dont recognize it such in the same way as deaf people dont recognize 4000hz as sound but poor deaf people it's not their choice, yours is a choice and a funny one haha. |
| andreas_mercury 30.05.2010 09:41 |
and to same goes for cosmos rocks even if it sucks |
| Sebastian 30.05.2010 10:01 |
> those are your words and never mine Actually, those words AREyours: YOU wrote the thing about petty, penis eater,etc. > maybe the site is written before TCR was released and simple hasn't been updated with the relevent info? The first version of the site was written before TCR, the one I uploaded yesterday was done after, but that doesn't make me be or seem a peniseater. > , if i am writing encyclopedia about american presidents i can't lie to people to say there was only 40 I'm not lying to perople: did I write TCR does not exist? No. I'm simply not including it in my website. That's completely different. > just because i did not like bush nixon garfield and reagan, I do dislike songs like GDML and I still included them, so this point is completely irrelevant. > i must include them all even against my own tastes.... But BD is not a website to include them all. It, as the banner says, contains the 1971-1991 era. If I'm making an encyclopaedia on American presidents in the 1850-1900 period, I haven't got to include Clinton and that doesn't make me a penis eater, nor it means I'm denying his existence. > you can cry to sleep and say some songs don't exist but they are all I haven't said they don't exist. I have said, though, that I won't include them in my website. That's very different. If I'm making an encyclopaedia on American presidents in the 1850-1900 period, I haven't got to include Clinton and that doesn't make me a penis eater, nor it means I'm denying his existence. > made in heaven is queen album, FACT Debatable... but I do include MIH on my website so why are you bringing it here? > and to same goes for cosmos rocks even if it sucks I don't know if it sucks but I do know I won't include it. If you can't accept it, maybe it's you who's 'small-minded'. If I'm making an encyclopaedia on American presidents in the 1850-1900 period, I haven't got to include Clinton and that doesn't make me a penis eater, nor it means I'm denying his existence. |
| andreas_mercury 30.05.2010 10:07 |
" but that doesn't make me be or seem a peniseater." not true because you can seem to be from someone elses perspective, that's out of your control i am afraid ............ |
| andreas_mercury 30.05.2010 10:14 |
also it is 2010 no one makes books about american presidents 1850-1900 .... ridiculous. |
| Sebastian 30.05.2010 10:42 |
> not true because you can seem to be from someone elses perspective, that's out of your control i am afraid ............ Out of yours too, since you are just one person and what you think doesn't mean anybody else will feel that way. > also it is 2010 no one makes books about american presidents 1850-1900 .... ridiculous. Actually, it's not ridiculous, as there are people studying and researching history, and they do it in something you probably don't know called PERIODS. So, it's not ridiculous to have, for instance, a book on Victorian England, or a book on the Carboniferous period. Peter Burke wrote, some years ago, a book on Early Modern Europe, which is ace. Maybe YOU don't make books about 1850-1900, but it doesn't mean 'no-one' makes that. By the way: link link So... there's absolutely nothing wrong on making a website on Queen Studio Info (1971-1991). It doesn't mean I'm claiming No-One But You (for instance) doesn't exist, it doesn't mean I'm saying it sucks (it doesn't), it doesn't mean I'm a penis eater, it doesn't mean I'm 'small-minded', it doesn't mean I'm foolish. |
| andreas_mercury 30.05.2010 11:04 |
"Out of yours too, since you are just one person and what you think doesn't mean anybody else will feel that way." that is obvious but more rally to my banner i see lately when you are outnumbered in debates. |
| Sebastian 30.05.2010 11:57 |
It's interesting that you completely ignored the main points of my post, namely: - I include MIH in my website - There's nothing ridiculous about picking a past era, in fact there are professions devoted to that - There's nothing simple-minded or penis-eater about sticking to an era - I've never claimed TCR doesn't exist If I write an encyclopaedia on American presidents from 1850 to 1900, I haven't got to include Clinton, and it doesn't mean I'm denying his existence. If I write an encyclopaedia on birds, I haven't got to include whales and it doesn't mean I'm denying their existence. So, if I'm making a website on Queen Studio Info (1971-1991), I haven't got to include anything before or after that (regardless of whether I, or you, or anybody else, may consider it to be Queen or not) and it doesn't mean I'm denying its existence. |
| andreas_mercury 30.05.2010 12:32 |
i think when i look at the thread you have now said penis-eater many more times than i even did in my post, so i must let that speak onto itself |
| The Real Wizard 30.05.2010 18:28 |
You try to come off as intelligent, but you don't have 1/100th of Sebastian's intelligence. Your inherent negativity towards the world doesn't help, either. |
| Sebastian 31.05.2010 00:01 |
BTT, I've added a more detailed info on Let Me Live: link Slowly, I'll be adding more and more songs in such depth. Next one is 'Days of Our Lives'. |
| andreas_mercury 31.05.2010 03:00 |
"You try to come off as intelligent, but you don't have 1/100th of Sebastian's intelligence. Your inherent negativity towards the world doesn't help, either." ======= in some way you want positives from me? positives toward the world okay let me - i have one. i am glad that the world is made so large that it puts a healthy gap between you and me. i just wanted of see how someone like sebsation would make to a very bold omition of songs from a discography when he says its nothing to do of personal taste but really came down to 100% personal taste. the penis eater was a joke and its only him who made repeat of it so many times that i dribbled soda over it... i wish he hadnt taken it to heart but in some way penis-eater is not a name he likes and i would apologize if he cared enough to read it, but it is my loss. |
| Regor 31.05.2010 13:43 |
Sebastian, great site (as it has always been), very informative, keeps getting even better every time. Always a very interesting read, and although I don't agree on some stuff concerning personal taste (e.g. GDML), I totally see it as that: personal taste. And it is also very refreshing to read something not stepford, as in fact not everytime they touched an instrument, god himself led their fingers... sometimes, maybe... :-) So thanks for sharing your immense work with us! Now to my question: dunno if it's been discussed before (was a bit tired to read through all the usual QZ-discussions) but what about interpretations of live-renditions of the songs, with remarks about different instrumentation and changes in arrangement? Good example would be AKOM, I think? Just as a comparison, (of course the site is subtitled"Studio Info") to see how they managed to transfer the sometimes complicted and multilayered studio-arrangements to the stage. |
| Sebastian 31.05.2010 14:53 |
Yes that's a very good idea and one I want (and ought) to put into practice soon. I'm particularly interested in settings: songs where John used plectrum or fingers or both (and the studio counterparts), songs where Roger added e-drums (or the other way around, songs recorded with e-drums or machines but done with acoustic kit on stage), Brian's guitar settings, specific synths and presets used by the auxiliary keyboard players, etc. I'd also like to have the song structure for alternative versions (live, demo, extended), and all of that will be slowly added. As for live things, some days ago there was a fantastic post (sorry to forget the author's name) about 'Father to Son'. On a much lower level of analysis, I'd like to have that as well. |
| Fmarton 02.06.2010 14:57 |
It was my post :) BTW I adore your site. |
| Fmarton 03.06.2010 06:20 |
About Brighton Rock: You wrote : The legendary solo was first used in November 1973 as part of Son and Daughter. This is a mistake. We know for sure that in concert it was already used in September 13. In studio it was used earlier. If we don't consider Blag(which was recorded in 1969, and has the germs of that solo), then we can say that it was used for the first time on July 25 for the BBC sessions. |
| Sebastian 03.06.2010 07:56 |
Thanks, I'll correct that. |
| Fmarton 03.06.2010 10:59 |
Another little thing that's debatable is the date of the picture with John with the Rickenbacker bass, from the debut album section. This picture is definitely not from 71-72 , but most likely from the Now I'm here Top of the pops appearance. Here is the link with other pictures from that show.: link . There we can see the drum kit of the band Hello. They released a single called Games Up in February 75. Now I'm here had it's first chart appearace in late January. So it's the most logical conclusion is that the picture is from Now I'm here TOTP. |
| FriedChicken 03.06.2010 17:44 |
I noticed a typo on the Drums section of Let Me Live "Amazing work on typical piano-ballad accompaniment, which is almost the same for the first to cycles" I guess you mean 'two cycles'? |
| Sebastian 03.06.2010 22:36 |
Indeed. Thanks. This weekend both the Ricken and the 'to' will be corrected. |
| ploughman 04.06.2010 17:03 |
Not a real mistake, but I thought it could be worth mentioning, that Roger is still hitting 880Hz soprano A 1981. He does so on Flash Theme choir (Flash! A-AA) Keep going with the amazing work you are doing!!! Great! |
| Sebastian 04.06.2010 22:35 |
Isn't that 1980? |
| Fmarton 05.06.2010 08:44 |
about the Ricken pic, there is a debate in a separate topic. Some says it's from 74 Killer Queen. |
| Sebastian 05.06.2010 10:35 |
Last night I was going to upload some corrections (including the Ricken pic) but I couldn't quite find the time. I expect to do it today. |
| Fmarton 05.06.2010 15:10 |
Maybe I was too quick to draw my "logical" conclusion that the picture is from Now I'm here TOTP, but anyway it's from Sheer heart attack era for sure. Oh, and the two studio pictures from Queen II section are from Mick Rock's photo sessions from Sheer heart attack recording session from September 74.(I have the book Classic Queen and thise picturtes are there; so this is sure :) ) |
| Sebastian 07.06.2010 00:58 |
Some things have been corrected and I uploaded the IWIA analysis. Next one will be John's One Year of Love. |
| tcc 08.09.2010 02:46 |
Under tthe page for One Year of Love link : In the second sentence under "Synthesizer", the word "found" should be "fond". |
| Wiley 09.09.2010 16:47 |
The link to "I can't live with you" is incorrect. The URL is missing the dot/period (.) before the "htm" in the file name. Clicking on it will cause a "Page not found" error. I spent a few hours today going over Seb's Website. It's getting better and better. Very complete. |
| YannickJoker 09.09.2010 16:59 |
I was listening to 'A Winter's Tale' and I think I hear Freddie during the two last 'Dreaming, dreaming' backing vocals, in both of the verses. Could be Roger though. And I think he's definatly in the last 'Ooohoooo' vocal (also used in You Don't Fool Me), so I'd say he also does backing vocals. |
| FriedChicken 11.09.2010 05:44 |
Not a mistake, but I have to admit i'm not a big fan of names like 'May & May Guitars" , "Deaks" etc. Which I think is not very 'academic'. Other than that, it's getting better with each update. In the Queen I page, you talk about Brian's Hairfred guitar. If I'm not mistaking he got that guitar back from the guy he gave it to a couple of years ago, and he posted about it on his Soapbox. I believe he also re-did the paint job on it. Can anyone confirm this? I think it was around 2006. |
| tcc 11.09.2010 07:27 |
Re: Hairfred guitar If you go to link "What's New" page, and type the words "Hairfred guitar" in the google search box in that page, you will get a link to the article called Guitar Player Magazine US Jan 83. Somewhere down in the article under the question "Do you own any unusual Accoustics", you will find Brian talking about the Hairfred guitar. Copying of an extract in that page is disallowed by their system. |
| Sebastian 11.09.2010 09:48 |
> Not a mistake, but I have to admit i'm not a big fan of names like 'May & May Guitars" , "Deaks" etc. Deaks: Accepted. May & May: The brand of the guitar is NOT 'The Red Special', 'The Old Lady', etc. THAT would've been not academic. As it's a bespoke guitar, made by the father of the man who plays it and the man who plays it himself, then it's technically unbranded. However, the usual convention for musical instruments is to put the surname of the person who made it (or whose family owns the company that made it). That way you've got (Leo) Fender, (Tom) Oberheim, (Carl) Bechstein, etc. As such, the name 'May & May' is correct, as it was made by Harold May and his son, Brian Harold May. > In the Queen I page, you talk about Brian's Hairfred guitar. If I'm not mistaking he got that guitar back from the guy he gave it to a couple of years ago, The one Brian got is the Egmond, NOT the Hairfred: back in mid-to-late 60's, Brian had his Egmond, Dave had an old guitar (brand was once printed 'Hairfred' but I haven't been able to find any info available on it, so it's either a make that doesn't exist anymore [quite likely as... well, some companies dissolve, that's life!] or it's a misprint). They traded it and from mid 60's up to 1990 (more or less), Brian only had (Dave Dilloway's former) Hairfred (if that's the brand). In 1990 (more or less), Dave gave Brian the Egmond so from then on he's got both guitars. The Egmond can be seen played by both Fred and Bri on the 'Headlong' video. In 2006 (more or less), Brian restored his Egmond guitar (which he'd owned from 1954 to mid sixties and from 1990 onwards) and that's why he commented on it via Soapbox. It also had to do with the fact he, only then (ca 2006), found out George Harrison's first guitar had also been an Egmond guitar, which triggered his interest in talking about it. Those were the days when the Soapbox had a lot of comments on music (e.g. the way Bijou bore fruition). Good times, indeed! |
| YannickJoker 25.01.2011 16:24 |
Sebastian, on the page for 'Machines' you state the following: "Freddie sang the two-part Simon&Garfunkel-esque bit during the verses, and Roger did the robot. Chorus harmonies by the three founding members." I think it's very clearly Brian doing the two-part with Freddie, just listen to 'Don't tell me I ain't got no soul'. And a typo on the front page for The Miracle: "While he did contribute to songwriting and also played some excellent parts (on both bass and guitar), he seemed to have been lost interest." That should of course be "seemed to have lost interest." |
| plumrach 28.01.2011 05:16 |
@sebastien I have just got round to looking at your website and its wonderful, i like all the details of the songs |
| Sebastian 28.01.2011 08:40 |
It's still got loads of mistakes so don't take my word for it. I'm planning a big update which will be ready in some months. It'll (hopefully) incorporate new info available thanks to the re-releases. For instance, I've narrowed down the Queen (I) sessions to April-June 1972, and I'll add loads of surprises (NO Cosmos Rocks, though). |
| inu-liger 29.01.2011 02:45 |
Sebastian wrote: (NO Cosmos Rocks, though). That's cos you suck. That is all. |
| Sebastian 29.01.2011 03:59 |
If I suck, why do you bother writing to me? Am I such an important part of your life? Or are you such a pathetic imbecile? Well... of course you are! Thanks though, for proving what I'd said about you earlier. BTW, the definition of 'sucking' is not 'refraining from including TCR on a website'. Off the ca 6,896,500,000 people in the world, I reckon about 6,896,499,900 haven't got a website or blog about TCR. Do all those 6,896,499,900 people suck because of that? I honestly think we should stay clear from each other's posts. That's why I've consciously refrained from even participating in recent threads you've started and I'd appreciate if you did the same. No good can come of that. |
| little foetus 29.01.2011 11:42 |
Just a small mistake. You say that One Year Of Love has been released in Japan but it has never been. As far as I know, it has only been released in France and Spain. |
| Sebastian 29.01.2011 12:48 |
There you have it. Thanks. Keep 'em coming! |
| YannickJoker 27.02.2011 01:10 |
Some things I've noticed over the past couple days: Innuendo main page: "Fred miming on an Egmond guitar Metropolis Studios, February 1991" That's wrong, it's actually in (november?) 1990, as the Headlong video was shot in (three days of) 1990. Don't Try Suicide: "Lead by Freddie and most harmonies by him except the 'you got it' bits which were recorded by Brian and Roger." I don't think this is right as I clearly hear Brian in the 'Don't Try Suicide!' choirs. There may be one or two other things I can't think of at the moment but here you go. P.S.: Are you watching, Sheer Brass Neck? A useful post! |
| Sebastian 27.02.2011 02:09 |
Thank you. It's also logical considering they'd hired the studio up until November, which is why Brian had to finish his Macbeth project at Allerton Hill. |
| Sebastian 01.03.2011 06:44 |
Yesterday I discovered some piano-related mistakes: the famous Bechstein D 9 ft 2 in size is actually a modern one. Back in late 19th century (when the Trident one [it was Bechstein after all] was made) sizes were labelled in Roman numerals (the Trident one is either III or IV) and in the early 20th century (when the white Bo Rhap / Hammersmith / Hyde Park one was made) they were from A to E, E being the largest, and D being a bit smaller than it is now; yet, the white Bechstein is neither A to D - most likely, it's a B (6 ft 8 in). |