| Sebastian 09.10.2009 12:08 |
Things we're sure about: * Freddie wrote it on a piano that wasn't concert grand. * Only Freddie sings during the intro. * A white Bechstein piano (the same as the one in the video) was used for recordings. * Sessions started off in Rockfield, Wales. * It was recorded at Rockfield, Lansdowne, Scorpio, Sarm and The Roundhouse. * Roger Taylor hits the top note (a soprano Bb). * Roger plays drums, timpani and gong. * All guitars were played by Brian May using his homemade instrument. * All lead and backing vocals were arranged by Freddie Mercury, including parts he didn't sing. * Bass-voice's done by Freddie Mercury. * Working title during the Welsh sessions: Fred's Thing. Things said or implied by official (i.e. band or close to the band) or pseudo-expert sources, but which are false: * 138 voices. * 160 voices. * 180 voices. * 200 voices. * Recorded on 16-track machine. * Partly recorded at Wessex (or Trident, Olympic or Sarm West for that matter). * It was originally longer, then cut down to 5:55. * Backing track was done in bits and then pieced together (a la Black Queen or Prophet's Song). * Done in a three-week span. * Queen's biggest hit (commercially speaking, Bites the Dust outsold it). * The first video ever Things said or implied by official sources, that although haven't been further confirmed, we've got no reasons to doubt about: * The title came long after the song was written. * The ascending 'never never never let me go' bit was brought when they were already mixing. * Roger Taylor was the first one who thought it could be the album's lead single. * The guitar solo was arranged by Brian May, after Mercury gave it to him as a kind of homework. Things said or implied by official or expert sources, that could easily be true, or false, or contain both myth and truth: * It's about Freddie's homosexuality. * It was written at (now Mary's) Yamaha baby-grand piano which Fred'd bought in Japan earlier that year. * The intro's reminiscent of (not necessarily equal to) a pre-Queen track titled Real Life. * Its direct forerunner's In the Lap of the Gods, not The March of the Black Queen. * Only Roger Taylor knows what's it about. * Mr Everett played it 14 times in his radio programme over one weekend. Things we could analyse further: * How much was it influenced by 10cc? * Speaking of 10cc... they'd already had I'm Not in Love at #1 that year. That song's with more voices than Bo Rhap and almost as long, so it probably wasn't such a huge surprise or problem for record companies. * Which composer(s) influenced Lord Teeth for the operatic section. I suspect maybe Rossini. |
| cmsdrums 09.10.2009 15:20 |
Can we say absolutely that it wasn't longer than 5.55 originally? Although the leaked master tapes contain only the length version we know, this is only the final recorded parts, and there could easily be earlier demos in the vaults with longer versions. Freddie could also have originally written it longer, but it got cut down in band discussions even before recording demos started. I'm not saying that it was longer than the version we know - in fact I don't think it ever was - but I am just playing devil's advocate and querying if, as you state, we can definitively state as fact that it was never longer. Cheers |
| Sebastian 09.10.2009 15:39 |
Yes, of course. Even without additional (discarded) sections, the mere possibility of a working version in a slower tempo could easily result in a 7-minute length and so on. But the legend of a 7-minute version which they had to cut to 5:55 is definitely false. Same as with the jigsaw puzzle theory (which is true for other songs though) or the horizontal expansion legend. |
| Reid_Special_98 09.10.2009 15:46 |
I don't know if the top B-flat would be a "soprano B-flat". Written on paper the tenor range (for example) is assumed to be one octave lower than what a female (Soprano) would sing. |
| Sebastian 09.10.2009 16:07 |
That Bb is two semitones below soprano C (i.e. two octaves above middle C), which is why I kept the nomenclature. But of course, there are many ways to look at it. |
| dragon-fly 10.10.2009 02:44 |
How about a transparent tape? Brian said it was true (as I can remember). |
| john bodega 10.10.2009 04:16 |
I have always wondered at the 100-200 voice quotes by the band. They OUGHT to know the real number, so is it just hyperbole or what? Any of us who've sat down with the leaked multitrack can hear for ourselves that there isn't that many voices heard at one time, so where the hell did this get started? |
| Mr Mercury 10.10.2009 06:05 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I have always wondered at the 100-200 voice quotes by the band. They OUGHT to know the real number, so is it just hyperbole or what? Any of us who've sat down with the leaked multitrack can hear for ourselves that there isn't that many voices heard at one time, so where the hell did this get started? This is just a guess, but I reckon that it was someone in the band who started that rumour that there was that many voices on the recording as that would explain why they couldnt (or didnt want to) do the opera part live on stage. or There is also the (vague) possibility that there is multiple voices on the recording made up of multiple versions of a single tracked vocal bounced to the one track. Its all just guess work though. |
| Sebastian 10.10.2009 07:51 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I have always wondered at the 100-200 voice quotes by the band. They OUGHT to know the real number, so is it just hyperbole or what? Any of us who've sat down with the leaked multitrack can hear for ourselves that there isn't that many voices heard at one time, so where the hell did this get started? Here's how such legends begin: 1. A tongue-in-cheek or figurative comment that's not meant to be taken literally, made in an innocent or equally tongue-in-cheek manner during an interview or something (e.g. '160 to 200 voices'). 2. An imbecile journalist taking it to heart. There are loads of intelligent journalists, but loads of papers or TV networks only hire those who aren't. 3. Next thing you know you've got documentaries, printed articles and some alleged experts claiming Bo Rhap's got 180 voices (basic maths: 200+160, and the result's divided by two). 4. Add more stupid journalists, a gullible public and 30 years for the legend to be further spread. 5. New generations see that 'everybody says it's got 180 voices'. Thus, it MUST be true because the human being CAN'T lie. 6. Voila: You've got dozens of millions of people thinking the legend's true. Next time, we could take Freddie's 'I dress to kill' comment literally and create a legend that he confessed being a murderer but never got caught. |
| MercurialFreddie 10.10.2009 09:12 |
It was inspired by Mozart's and Beethoven's unfinished work. The first one - mostly Requiem as there is one section which -speaking of the theory- is identically to the galileo section, I think that it is "dies irea". Regarding the latter - I have no idea but I have heard the rumours that it is Beethoven's 10th unfinished symphony which parts are on the web and you can find it easily. |
| john bodega 10.10.2009 13:56 |
Sebastian wrote: 2. An imbecile journalist taking it to heart. There are loads of intelligent journalists, but loads of papers or TV networks only hire those who aren't. 4. Add more stupid journalists, a gullible public and 30 years for the legend to be further spread.True enough, though I think it'd be more a case of people taking things at face value and not really caring much how many voices exactly are on the record ... gullibility yeah, but not exactly stupidity - not everyone is as analytical as a serious Queen fan, hehe. Having said that - technological limitations aside - would it REALLY have sounded much bigger if Queen had stacked 200 voices together? In my most ambitious overdubs, I've hit a point where it really doesn't seem to make much of a difference how many sounds are on there - usually once there's 25 to 30 I can't even tell anymore. That's guitar of course, which might be different but I don't see how. |
| vadenuez 10.10.2009 15:10 |
It's quite easy to see that the 160-200 voices statement is false. Take any recording from some choral opus (Beethoven's 9th, Requiem, Carmina Burana) which have a full choir: the sound is massive and much more complex than BoRhap and there are no more than 50-70 throats singing at a time. 180 voices are totally overboard, even for Freddie's standards of excess. |
| mooghead 10.10.2009 16:03 |
"why they couldnt (or didnt want to) do the opera part live on stage." One of the most intelligent things Queen ever did was not be tempted to do this on stage. It would have sounded utter shit. Talk about pissing on a picasso.... even if its picasso doing the pissing.. |
| Sebastian 10.10.2009 16:05 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Sebastian wrote: 2. An imbecile journalist taking it to heart. There are loads of intelligent journalists, but loads of papers or TV networks only hire those who aren't. 4. Add more stupid journalists, a gullible public and 30 years for the legend to be further spread.True enough, though I think it'd be more a case of people taking things at face value and not really caring much how many voices exactly are on the record ... gullibility yeah, but not exactly stupidity Yes of course, I don't mean everybody who thought it's 138, 160, 180 or 200 is stupid. But they're at least naïve (i.e. gullible). |
| mooghead 10.10.2009 16:06 |
I reckon there is no more than 21 voices at once |
| Sebastian 10.10.2009 16:12 |
I think there is more than 21. 22, to be exact. |
| mooghead 10.10.2009 16:16 |
There is definitely between 22 and 24 |
| Mr Mercury 10.10.2009 18:10 |
mooghead wrote: "why they couldnt (or didnt want to) do the opera part live on stage." One of the most intelligent things Queen ever did was not be tempted to do this on stage. It would have sounded utter shit. Talk about pissing on a picasso.... even if its picasso doing the pissing.. Now that I definetely dont disagree with you. I once heard an act where I used to work years ago do that section of Bo Rhap live and it was piss. And you are right, for Queen to attempt this part live would have been folly in my opinion too. |
| vadenuez 12.10.2009 16:27 |
This isn't music related, but there's another urban legend (I haven't seen another band immerse in so many urban legends as Queen) which claims that Bohemian Rhapsody was the first video ever. Apparently the person who said this didn't know that The Beatles were already doing video clips ten years before! Must say BoRhap's video isn't THAT much of a videoclip (it's just the band on stage -a trademark for any band those days- and some goofy effects in the middle section), yet this myth can be found even in important Queen-related sources. |
| Mr Mercury 12.10.2009 18:39 |
vadenuez wrote: This isn't music related, but there's another urban legend (I haven't seen another band immerse in so many urban legends as Queen) which claims that Bohemian Rhapsody was the first video ever. Apparently the person who said this didn't know that The Beatles were already doing video clips ten years before! Must say BoRhap's video isn't THAT much of a videoclip (it's just the band on stage -a trademark for any band those days- and some goofy effects in the middle section), yet this myth can be found even in important Queen-related sources. Not quite right. They did make a video for Bohemian Rhapsody purely because they couldnt do shows like Top Of The Pops, etc, and to help sell the single. Yes the Beatles did do video before Queen, but that was in order to fulfill the demands of various TV shows around the world |
| FriedChicken 13.10.2009 15:17 |
I still wonder what the band means when they say '180 vocals'. Do they really mean 180 vocals? Or another number to that extend? Or do they use the number 180 to show it's a whole lot of vocals. In folklore and legends numbers have been used as symbols a lot. eg. 1001 Nights, Abraham being 175 years old. Where the numbers mean "a lot of nights, and very old" Like we use to say Queen have re-released We Will Rock You a million times. |
| Sebastian 13.10.2009 15:57 |
The thing is, the band didn't actually say that. Fred only said, and I quote: 'we recreated a sort of 160- to 200-piece choir effect'. Now, RECREATING a 160- to 200-piece choir is NOT the same as ADDING 160 to 200 voices, just like RECREATING a clarinet with the Red Special isn't the same as having it grow a mouthpiece; just like having Roger RECREATING a brass section doesn't mean he had actual pistons. It's the same as when Deaks, in the same interview, says they gave John Anthony the elbow... it's a figure of speech - of course they didn't provide him with a joint between the arm and the forearm. So, Fred did NOT actually confirm or deny an exact or precise figure. It was all down to an imbecile journalist taking the quote too literally, calculating an average (180 in this case) and spreading a legend. |
| john bodega 13.10.2009 19:18 |
I still reckon that, had they the time or technology to put 180 overdubs on there, it wouldn't have sounded much different anyway. |
| Sebastian 13.10.2009 21:55 |
You're absolutely right about that. |
| Sebastian 14.10.2009 10:07 |
An update: Roy does say '180 overdubs' on the book 'Rock Legends at Rockfield'. Of course, he also says Bo Rhap was done on 16-track... I imagine it's a case of, quoting MJ, 'lies become the truth'. |
| rhyeking 14.10.2009 11:45 |
Just a thought: Let's take the "180" vocal number and do some math. The following sections are "choral." "Scaramouche, scaramouche, will you do the fandango" 3 voices = 3 Freddies "Thunderbolt and lighting, very, very frightening me" 9 voices = 3 (high, mid & low) x 3 (Fred, Roger & Brian) "Magnifico" 9 voices = 3 (high, mid & low) x 3 (Fred, Roger & Brian) "He's just a poor boy, from a poor family. Spare him his live from this monstrousity." 9 voices = 3 (high, mid & low) x 3 (Fred, Roger & Brian) "Bismilah!" 9 voices = 3 (high, mid & low) x 3 (Fred, Roger & Brian) "No!" 9 voices = 3 (high, mid & low) x 3 (Fred, Roger & Brian) "We will not let you go" 9 voices = 3 (high, mid & low) x 3 (Fred, Roger & Brian) "Let him go" 9 voices = 3 (high, mid & low) x 3 (Fred, Roger & Brian) "Bismilah! We will not let you go" 9 voices = 3 (high, mid & low) x 3 (Fred, Roger & Brian) "Let me go" 9 voices = 3 (high, mid & low) x 3 (Fred, Roger & Brian) "Bismilah! Will not let you go" 9 voices = 3 (high, mid & low) x 3 (Fred, Roger & Brian) "Let me go" 9 voices = 3 (high, mid & low) x 3 (Fred, Roger & Brian) "Will not let you go" 9 voices = 3 (high, mid & low) x 3 (Fred, Roger & Brian) "Let Me Go!" 9 voices = 3 (high, mid & low) x 3 (Fred, Roger & Brian) "Will not let you go" 9 voices = 3 (high, mid & low) x 3 (Fred, Roger & Brian) "Never, never, never, never let me go" 9 voices = 3 (high, mid & low) x 3 (Fred, Roger & Brian) "No! No! No! No! No! No! No!" 9 voices = 3 (high, mid & low) x 3 (Fred, Roger & Brian) "Mama-mia, let me go!" 9 voices = 3 (high, mid & low) x 3 (Fred, Roger & Brian) "Beelzabub has a devil put aside for me, for me, for me!" 9 voices = 3 (high, mid & low) x 3 (Fred, Roger & Brian) So, 9 voices on 19 seperate parts. 9 x 18 = 162 + 3 = 165. Add to that the individual sung parts: "I see a little silhoutto of a man." "Galileo" (Roger) "Galileo" (Freddie) "Galileo" (Roger) "Galileo" (Freddie) "Galileo" (Roger) "Galileo Figaro" 2 voices = Freddie + Roger "I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me" "Easy come, easy go, will you let me go?" "Oh, mamma-mia, mamma-mia!" That's 9 right there. 165 + 11 = 176. Now, that's a combination of vocal overdubs and individual sung parts (mostly Freddie, and some Roger). I also admit that there may be more or fewer overdubs in parts, but Brian described the general process of recording the low-end vocals, the mid-range vocals and the high end vocals of each lyric in order to create the harmonies (instead of Roger singing the high end, Brian the mid and Freddie the low end, which would be more common place). This point is from the "Making Of 'A Night At The Opera'" Classic Albums documentary. So, without being able to count every single vocal multi-track, my best guess got me to 176 individual voices. Now, to address the 7 minute long version of "Rhapsody," I've only ever heard that time tossed out by people like roadies, other artists, DJs and people floating around the Queen camp interviewed well after 1975. They were generally always saying vague things like, "Yeah, no one will play it because it's 7 (or "6 and a half" or "8 minutes") long." They were just grabbing a number off the top of their head because they know it was way longer than the standard 3 to 4 minutes long and 7 (or 6.5 or 8) minutes sounds impressive and just about right. I've never heard any Queen member say, "Yeah, it was 7 minutes and we cut it down." If anything, I'm more willing to believe it was shorter and grew, based on RTB's statement on The Magic Years that it kept getting longer and longer the more they worked on it. |
| Sebastian 14.10.2009 12:15 |
There are several mistakes on your counting, but I understand the spirit. It'd be nice to make a 'line by line' calculation for how many voices were there. Indeed, 7 or 8 minutes can be just a random number. But so are 138, 160, 180 and 200. |
| rhyeking 14.10.2009 14:15 |
Like I said: "best guess," and that was while I was sitting at work, on my break, without the benefit of playing the song as I did it, so there's a margin of error. If it's closer to 200 or 150, I think that's still what they meant by having that many voices, even though there are only three (F,R & B), all overdubbed. Good thread. |
| Yara 18.10.2009 14:11 |
One of the great things about taking part in an internet forum is the chance to exercise my ignorance with relative impunity. This issue of the voices has been brought up many, many times by friends and I could never really understand what they meant by "voices". Reading this thread, I see I still don't get what's meant here by "voices". I'm not trying to be facitious, let me say that straightway - it's something which has been troubling me for some time, because it seems absolutely obvious to people, and to me it's certainly not. Sometimes I think people are simply referring to the amount of vocals; sometimes it seems people are talking about the different voicings, which is more related to pitch and colour; sometimes I get the impression it's about how many times a certain vocal pattern is overdubbed. Plenty of times it seems to me people are dealing with all that! I would like help, really. I, hereby, humbly and honestly, ask for help: what are considered the best guesses and, most important, how do people get to a certain plausible final number - 16, 20, 21, 22, 180, 320, 495, 793, 1.293, you name it. Rhyekin's post helped me understand a very important thing: the method - the how to - for coming up with a certain number. That's helpful because I begin to understand what people mean when they're talking about voices in the first place! It is a great thread. One of the best I have seen on Queenzone. It's really a helpful thread which clears away some annoying doubts. Way to go! Love you all, and all that stuff you already know. ; -)) |
| mooghead 18.10.2009 16:35 |
"It is a great thread. One of the best I have seen on Queenzone. It's really a helpful thread which clears away some annoying doubts." But its just speculation, not fact... it has created more doubts. Too many people post opinion on this site and pass it off as fact (you know who you are) then lie back and take the plaudits. Hope your ego's let you sleep well... |
| Sebastian 18.10.2009 17:52 |
Mooghead: You can simply stay clear of any topic I start, and that way your fact-full mind won't risk being damaged by my less-than-100% inferior threads. Of course, I can only guess you're the one writing those lines because, for all I know, that's mere speculation (after all, I'm not watching you typing). I hope your ego... actually, I couldn't fucking care less about your ego. Yara: Multi-tracls are the best way to get to a plausible final number. You don't even need to be a professional musician to identify or at least make an estimate of how many voices appear on certain bit. Then it's a matter of addition and substraction (since some voices are copied and pasted to other tracks in order to facilitate the mixing process) and voila. Rhyekin's post, interesting as it is, shows that you can back up virtually any figure by simply counting differently, or changing/expanding the meaning of '180 voices' (or whatever). |
| Yara 18.10.2009 18:21 |
Sebastian wrote: Yara: Multi-tracls are the best way to get to a plausible final number. You don't even need to be a professional musician to identify or at least make an estimate of how many voices appear on certain bit. Then it's a matter of addition and substraction (since some voices are copied and pasted to other tracks in order to facilitate the mixing process) and voila. Rhyekin's post, interesting as it is, shows that you can back up virtually any figure by simply counting differently, or changing/expanding the meaning of '180 voices' (or whatever). Thanks a million. That's the kind of info I was after. Now my doubts are gone. Many thanks and congrats for the thread! |
| mooghead 18.10.2009 18:31 |
To those who do not know the absolute facts, please start your threads with 'In my opinion....' ... for some reason some people on here think you are some sort of authority on the subject but all you know is what you hear... no more than anyone else... your assumptions, and thats all they are, are often wrong. And its offensive. Thats to those who think they are something they are not.... |
| Sebastian 18.10.2009 18:39 |
Thats to those who think they are something they are not.... Like you. Again, based on what you wrote earlier (about The Hitman), you think (oh yeah: that's another bit of speculation, on YOUR side) that if you haven't read a person saying something, it means no one has EVER said it. If somebody thinks I'm an authority, it's their problem, not yours. Why are you so jealous? And of course, my assumptions can be wrong (and often are). Have I EVER said otherwise? Oh yeah.... you're the one who knows everything, of course... And no: I'm not gonna start off every single sentence with IMO..., so if you're too bothered about it, then you can simply refrain from reading anything I ever write. We'll both be better off that way. |
| rhyeking 18.10.2009 20:50 |
I can count on one hand the number of people on this forum who are actual authorities on Queen lore, while everyone else are fans with varying degrees of knowledge. Asking people to preface their statements with "In my opinion..." is a redundant. Besides, even if someone IS an "expert (by Forum standards)," unless you're Brian, Roger, John, or someone who has worked closely with them (David Richards, Mike Moran, Spike Edney, Paul Rodgers, etc.), anything said here is subject to critique. It's up to the less-informed readers/posters to learn how to discern accurate information through proper research (such as cross-referencing verifiable facts). This is a Forum, a place of open discussion. The citing of facts is done to support a position or argument. Other than those cited facts *it's all opinion in here!* Anyone who goes around saying, "It's true! I read it on the Serious Discussion Forum on Queenzone!" deserves to live is misguided ignorance. |
| Sebastian 09.11.2009 12:10 |
Update: Here, Dr May says it's 150 voices: link |
| pittrek 09.11.2009 14:29 |
I always thought the numbers meant something like "hell of a lot" |
| The Real Wizard 09.11.2009 15:14 |
Sebastian wrote: Update: Here, Dr May says it's 150 voices: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX1lZ5OpRk4 Rhyeking illustrates above that there are over 150 voices. So what exactly are you trying to point out? |
| Sebastian 09.11.2009 15:50 |
I'm trying to point out that there's another number in the legend. So far we've got: 138 (said by RT on BBC) 150 (said by BM on the linked interview) 160 to 200 (said by FM on BBC) 180 (said by RTB for the Rockfield book) > I always thought the numbers meant something like "hell of a lot" And they do. The problem is when people take that literally. |
| The Real Wizard 09.11.2009 16:09 |
The problem is when people take that literally. Why exactly is that a problem? The fact that there are different accounts of it merely indicates that they didn't count the voices themselves. Any of those numbers is a close enough estimate. Why should this merit so much attention? At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that there were a lot of voices, and that it was a great, groundbreaking song. That's really all that matters. |
| ParisNair 09.11.2009 16:51 |
Mr Mercury wrote:mooghead wrote: "why they couldnt (or didnt want to) do the opera part live on stage." One of the most intelligent things Queen ever did was not be tempted to do this on stage. It would have sounded utter shit. Talk about pissing on a picasso.... even if its picasso doing the pissing..Now that I definetely dont disagree with you. I once heard an act where I used to work years ago do that section of Bo Rhap live and it was piss. And you are right, for Queen to attempt this part live would have been folly in my opinion too. They played the opera section live at the Queen's Jubilee concert in 2002 with the cast WWRY musical. Was anyone there to tell how that performance was? |
| Sebastian 09.11.2009 22:00 |
Sir GH wrote:The problem is when people take that literally.Why exactly is that a problem? The fact that there are different accounts of it merely indicates that they didn't count the voices themselves. Any of those numbers is a close enough estimate. Why should this merit so much attention? At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that there were a lot of voices, and that it was a great, groundbreaking song. That's really all that matters. Why exactly is it a problem whether it's or not a problem to me? The fact that there have been many instances of me complaining about that merely indicates that I care about that topic. Anybody who also cares can contribute, anybody who doesn't can skip those threads. Why should whether it merits or not so much attention, merit so much attention? At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that some people care about the amount of voices, some don't. That's really all that matters. |
| Makka 11.11.2009 22:16 |
I was always under the impression they were referring to the number of vocal overdubs, not voices at one time. |
| john bodega 12.11.2009 03:43 |
That's what I figure - and the numbers do work to be roughly in that league if you make the odd assumption about how many tracks are in that bit. What I want to know is where did the myth start that Brian et al meant 180 "simultaneous" voices? Where does this assumption come from? |
| royopvp 12.11.2009 04:36 |
ParisNair wrote:Mr Mercury wrote:They played the opera section live at the Queen's Jubilee concert in 2002 with the cast WWRY musical. Was anyone there to tell how that performance was?mooghead wrote: "why they couldnt (or didnt want to) do the opera part live on stage." One of the most intelligent things Queen ever did was not be tempted to do this on stage. It would have sounded utter shit. Talk about pissing on a picasso.... even if its picasso doing the pissing..Now that I definetely dont disagree with you. I once heard an act where I used to work years ago do that section of Bo Rhap live and it was piss. And you are right, for Queen to attempt this part live would have been folly in my opinion too. It was pretty shoddy. Their choice for Freddie's parts was poor as well. |
| bucsateflon 13.01.2019 09:18 |
Brian May wrote the guitar solo and other guitar parts in this song |
| mooghead 13.01.2019 09:38 |
WTF? |
| dysan 13.01.2019 13:58 |
Of course, 10CC wouldn't have done anything even similar to the Bo Rhap video while promoting I'm Not In Love. Oh |
| bucsateflon 13.01.2019 15:49 |
mooghead wrote: WTF?I know! I'm just as indignant as you are at retards saying Freddie wrote the guitar solo |
| Dr Magus 13.01.2019 16:46 |
I wondr what wthe world record is for the longest time to elapse between posts. Not just here, anywhere in Internetland. Hmmm. |
| thomasquinn 32989 14.01.2019 10:44 |
bucsateflon wrote:You clearly have very little self-respect, making such a fool of yourself twice in one day.mooghead wrote: WTF?I know! I'm just as indignant as you are at retards saying Freddie wrote the guitar solo |
| bucsateflon 14.01.2019 13:52 |
bitch, help me keep this topic up on first page... |
| bucsateflon 17.01.2019 07:59 |
Brian May wrote the guitar SOLO in Bohemian Rhapsody, not Freddie. one imbecile says on youtube "no actually Freddie did, on piano, and it apparently took Brian all night to translate it to guitar?"...he has 4 likes other twats say: "Wasn't it mentioned that Freddie wrote it on the piano and Brian then transferred it into the guitar notes??" "every part of that song was written by F.M. the guitar solo was written on the piano" "actually freddie wrote it but played it on the piano so brian tried it on his guitar :)?" |
| bucsateflon 01.02.2019 09:20 |
link check out this imbecile, spreading false stories this retard gathered 3,076,806 views, |
| bucsateflon 05.03.2019 09:00 |
"dude, you’re waaaay off; guitar and piano are LITERALLY in the same language (A, b, c, d, e, f, g) all of them having sharps except for b and e. That being said, Brian could have easily transposed the solo into guitar." ...said a retard who believes Freddie wrote the guitar solo. Imagine Brian transposing a Freddie piano solo on guitar, lol. |
| Sebastian 05.03.2019 13:18 |
Yeah, I used to think the solo'd been written by Frederick but I was wrong. Brian didn't write it on guitar, though: as far as I know, he had it in his head, and he first sang it to Frederick, and then Frederick said he liked it, so Brian played it on guitar. So, rather than transferring a melody from piano to guitar, Brian transferred it from his head to his fingers, as he usually did, and which he was/is excellent at. |
| MercurialFreddie 05.03.2019 15:53 |
Wasn't the opera section at some point in the 75' rehearsed live and the band decided that they weren't happy with it and went with the tape ? |
| Sebastian 06.03.2019 13:13 |
As far as I know, that's merely an unsubstantiated rumour. There's no evidence either way. |
| bucsateflon 27.06.2019 11:02 |
I see a progress was done by me and very few others in stopping stupid millennials spread the imbecilic and unrealistic rumor on youtube, that Freddie wrote the Bohemian Rhapsody guitar solo.... on a piano |
| dysan 27.06.2019 19:46 |
It was actually on a kazoo. |