| Gregoryvincke 18.03.2010 11:22 |
Only seven years between these two songs, but what a difference in quality. Being a new fan of Queen and having collected the albums recently, I notice how different the songs are. Body language is so full of creativity, and was right with its time whe it hit the charts. On the other hand, Bohemian rhapsody is so tasteless and kitch, and musically so empty. The harmonies were computerized, and the song is basically built on 6 minutes bass- and drumloops. I cannot understand the wide range of idiots that love this song, especially its tasteless and nasty video. Body language is what I call musical brilliance and is in my opinion a masterpiece. The video is extremely original, and is a nice tribute to homosexuality, which all the queenies are in heart and soul. Long life to it! |
| Wiley 18.03.2010 13:30 |
Oh, I'm loving this topic already! I hope it goes on and on for many pages more. :) I have Hot Space on my car now, by the way. Cool, fun album. |
| Gregsynth 18.03.2010 13:43 |
Body Language is perhaps Queen's best song, and Freddie's best work: That awesome slinky bass-line complements Freddie's epic vocals. The lack of guitar in that song was a BRILLIANT move. If I had to keep ONE Queen song forever, it would be Body Language. :) No wonder it hit the top 20! |
| Gregoryvincke 18.03.2010 17:15 |
I ABSOLUTELY agree with you Dear Gregsynth! Magnificent. Actually, I'm listening to Body Language right now. Your words, accompanied with the music melody are warming my heart and sending shivers down my spine |
| mooghead 18.03.2010 18:15 |
"Queen Serious Discussion" You are really very funny, I have been laughing for 3 hours. Ooops, I meant you are a twat. I am laughing out loud..... yawn..... |
| lalaalalaa 18.03.2010 18:25 |
It's getting hard to tell who's being sarcastic now.... |
| Gregsynth 18.03.2010 18:36 |
lalaalalaa wrote: It's getting hard to tell who's being sarcastic now....I don't know about anyone else, but I'm being serious! |
| lalaalalaa 18.03.2010 18:38 |
Gregsynth wrote:lalaalalaa wrote: It's getting hard to tell who's being sarcastic now....I don't know about anyone else, but I'm being serious! How do I know that your post about being serious isn't sarcasm? |
| Gregsynth 18.03.2010 18:58 |
lalaalalaa wrote:Read my initial post (my first post on this topic) REALLY closely......Gregsynth wrote:How do I know that your post about being serious isn't sarcasm?lalaalalaa wrote: It's getting hard to tell who's being sarcastic now....I don't know about anyone else, but I'm being serious! |
| marcenciels 18.03.2010 20:09 |
"Body language is so full of creativity, and was right with its time whe it hit the charts." i think it was before its time and a drastic change of sound. thats a bit why it was not very popular at first with the fans in general? change was the motor of Queen, no bo-rhap... no Queen mania ? i am not going to add anything else to this post. art will please or not ! |
| buffypython 18.03.2010 23:15 |
"Bohemian rhapsody is so tasteless and kitch, and musically empty. The harmonies were computerized, and the song is basically built on 6 minutes bass- and drum loops." Please, PLEASE tell me you're being sarcastic. I think I'm witnessing madness and delusion on every scale in this forum. I hope Brian, Roger, & Deaky never chance upon this site and think all their fans are babbling, bored morons. |
| bigV 19.03.2010 03:41 |
What a dreadful track! "Delilah" is better than BL and that's saying much! V. |
| master marathon runner 19.03.2010 04:06 |
OI YOU!! Leave 'Delilah' out o' this. I like 'Delilah' and i want to protect it. Master Marathon Runner |
| Rubbersuit 19.03.2010 10:39 |
Body Language makes sweet sticky love to little Bo-Rap, then leaves in the morning without even saying goodbye, on to the next conquest.... |
| jamster1111 19.03.2010 11:39 |
Both are absolutely brilliant songs. What makes them so brilliant is that they prove how diverse Queen of a band was and how how much variety Mercury had in his writing. True genious!!! Also, he could sing any genre of music flawlessly |
| Mr Mercury 19.03.2010 13:08 |
Bo Rhap only has 2 good bits in it..... The first good bit is just before it starts... And second good bit is just after it ends.... The bit inbetween is rotten, especially that horrid "opera" bit......... :) |
| Gregsynth 19.03.2010 17:02 |
I just got done listening to Body Language for the 20th time today! I cannot believe how GREAT the song is! It's definitely a top 5 Queen tune! |
| mooghead 19.03.2010 17:16 |
buffypython wrote: "Bohemian rhapsody is so tasteless and kitch, and musically empty. The harmonies were computerized, and the song is basically built on 6 minutes bass- and drum loops." Please, PLEASE tell me you're being sarcastic. I think I'm witnessing madness and delusion on every scale in this forum. I hope Brian, Roger, & Deaky never chance upon this site and think all their fans are babbling, bored morons. Ok, that was great.... you are either an oscar winner or a fish that loves getting wound in... really not sure. |
| mike hunt 20.03.2010 16:05 |
Nothing wrong with liking body lanuage....i could name 5 songs easily that I Dislike more.....More of that Jazz, Fun it, put out the fire, tear it up, don't lose your head, party, and so on. It's just another song to me, not a favorite of mine, but not my least favorite either. |
| Gregsynth 25.03.2010 12:51 |
Body Language is epic! |
| Holly2003 25.03.2010 12:58 |
Body Language could fit into the middle of Bo Rap, as a kind of dream/nightmare sequence in which Fred goes to Hell, has his sense of taste removed by Beelzebub, and is sent back to Earth to spew out crap disco music. |
| Gregsynth 25.03.2010 13:08 |
Holly2003 wrote: Body Language could fit into the middle of Bo Rap, as a kind of dream/nightmare sequence in which Fred goes to Hell, has his sense of taste removed by Beelzebub, and is sent back to Earth to spew out crap disco music.LMFAO! Excellent story-line! It should hit the top of the charts! |
| mike hunt 25.03.2010 13:40 |
At least the man alway's tried new things....unlike brian and roger since his death. Queen tried (especially freddie) new things right from the start with my fairy king, continued that trend throughout their career. it's only natural they were gonna fall on their face eventually. They went too far with hot space. |
| Gregsynth 25.03.2010 13:52 |
mike hunt wrote: At least the man alway's tried new things....unlike brian and roger since his death. Queen tried (especially freddie) new things right from the start with my fairy king, continued that trend throughout their career. it's only natural they were gonna fall on their face eventually. They went too far with hot space.Hot Space proved that Queen had balls to COMPLETELY turn their style around! |
| Gregoryvincke 25.03.2010 15:20 |
Sexy..... SEXY BODYYYYYYYYYY!!!! Oh my god, so unexpected, so brilliant! Being a new queen fan, i recently read somewhere that "crazy little things" had been written by Freddie Mercury, and relatively quickly in his bad. Well, my theory is that snippets of body language were written when he got out of his bad and admired himself in the mirror. What do you think guys? |
| LittleSilhouetto 27.03.2010 11:30 |
Let me get this right..... Bo Rap is rubbish and Body Language is ace. So how come Bo Rap spent weeeeeeeeeeeks in in the charts, sold loooooooads of copies, is at the top of many lists of "best..." whatever, whereas, most people have never heard of Body Language who aren't Queen fans.? I'm not saying you're wrong, there's no accounting for what anyone likes or dislikes. I really like Delilah and Hot Space. Body Language just doesn't do anything for me. Sorry! |
| Soundfreak 28.03.2010 14:58 |
You should never forget that Queen were linked to the time, in which they were active. When they started it was the age of multitracking. Up to the late 60s four track recording still was the standard. And suddenly they had 16 track...24...48.... And that lead to all those bombastic arrangements. Other bands of that time were doing similar things like 10cc, who had more than 250 voices on "I'm not in love". Synthesizers were already available but very unreliable, especially on stage. This changed with the 80s and as multitracking had lost it's attraction Queen went on with the new technology - as they did before. And when finally the computerised drums had reached a certain standard Roger Taylor even stopped drumming on the records. With the 90s this developement somehow has ended. It seems that the sound of Rock Music is explored. And so it's little surprise that the remaining Queen members couldn't try new things or sounds. |
| Thistle 01.04.2010 20:35 |
I remember starting a thread about how March Of The Black Queen was the band's real masterpiece - well, blow me, I was wrong! It really, truly, is Body Language. Thanks ever so much for pointing it out to me, Gregory. What a real eye-opener.....I mean, it's been staring me in the face since 1982! Fuck Bo Rhap and the 70s stuff - I'm all for the gay disco bit. In fact, I listened to BL earlier and got so excited, a little bit of pee came out. Wow, this really is a refreshing, enlightening conversation. Why haven't we all come out as Body Language fans before? Can't wait for the Hot Space demos boxset from the archives!!!! Sexeee Bodyyyyyyeee.... |
| Sebastian 02.04.2010 04:23 |
> So how come Bo Rap spent weeeeeeeeeeeks in in the charts, sold loooooooads of copies, is at the top of many lists of "best..." whatever, whereas, most people have never heard of Body Language who aren't Queen fans.? First of all, loads of people have heard of 'Body Language' without being Queen fans, and without even knowing it's a Queen song. Second of all, spending weeks in the charts and selling loads of copies isn't necessarily related to quality. Both 'Somebody to Love' and 'We Are the Champions' failed to be #1 in the British charts, but 'Ketchup Song (Asereje)' did get to the top. Does it mean it's a better song than both of them? > And suddenly they had 16 track...24...48.. Technically, 48 was very rarely (if ever) used back then. > .. And that lead to all those bombastic arrangements. No, it didn't. Bombastic arrangements had existed long before and would exist long after. > Other bands of that time were doing similar things like 10cc, who had more than 250 voices on "I'm not in love". I think that's a gross exaggeration. It did have more voices than 'Bo Rhap' though. > Synthesizers were already available but very unreliable, especially on stage. No they weren't (unreliable, that is). No wonder why several acts used them a lot both in the studio and on stage. > This changed with the 80s and as multitracking had lost it's attraction Queen went on with the new technology - as they did before. They still used multi-tracking, multi-tracking never lost its attraction and Queen were actually, with some exceptions, a little behind with the new technology. > And when finally the computerised drums had reached a certain standard Roger Taylor even stopped drumming on the records. Totally false statement. |
| Soundfreak 02.04.2010 07:01 |
Sebastian wrote: > Other bands of that time were doing similar things like 10cc, who had more than 250 voices on "I'm not in love". I think that's a gross exaggeration. It did have more voices than 'Bo Rhap' though. > Synthesizers were already available but very unreliable, especially on stage. No they weren't (unreliable, that is). No wonder why several acts used them a lot both in the studio and on stage. > This changed with the 80s and as multitracking had lost it's attraction Queen went on with the new technology - as they did before. They still used multi-tracking, multi-tracking never lost its attraction and Queen were actually, with some exceptions, a little behind with the new technology. > And when finally the computerised drums had reached a certain standard Roger Taylor even stopped drumming on the records. Totally false statement. Ah.."Mr Everybody else is wrong" again... Precisely you hear more than 250 voices on "I'm not in Love". Listen to the BBC radio series "The producers" about 10cc, where they tell how they made it and even play excerpts from the multitrack. So they should know what they have done. And yes, the early valve driven synthesizers were unreliable on stage and easily went out of tune. Ask bands from those days if you ever have the chance. And if not try finding the book "Are you ready Steve" by Steve Priest where he writes about their nightmares on stage when the synth ruined most versions of their 75 hit "Fox on the run". From "Hot Space" onwards there is a lot of computerised drumming on the Queen records with "Gaga" and "Days of our lives" being the most obvious examples. Others feature basic programming with some live drums overdubbed. And yes, there were still some real drums on some 80s tracks. Wasn't it you Mr Sebastian who recently tried to give me a lesson that everything is to be taken literally? Can we agree on something, Mr Sebastian ? We obviously have a different perspective on music and will probably never agree. We should not bore the other people on this board with this. So please ignore my "totally false statements" while I let you enjoy your unlimited knowledge..;-) |
| Sebastian 02.04.2010 16:29 |
> Ah.."Mr Everybody else is wrong" again... Totally false statement. I've never claimed everybody else is wrong. > Precisely you hear more than 250 voices on "I'm not in Love". That's one of those fake legends. There are indeed loads of voices, more so than in 'Bohemian Rhapsody', but not 256. > Listen to the BBC radio series "The producers" about 10cc Many producers are liable to exaggerate things. Or they use a figure of speech. By the way, when John Deacon said they gave John Anthony the elbow he didn't mean they presented him with a joint between the forearm and the upper arm; when Freddie said he dressed to kill he didn't mean he was a murderer (unless he was naked), and when he said 'Bo Rhap' took him bloody ages he didn't mean he reincarnated several times, always covered in vital fluid, while writing it. > So they should know what they have done. They use a figure of speech. By the way, when John Deacon said they gave John Anthony the elbow he didn't mean they presented him with a joint between the forearm and the upper arm; when Freddie said he dressed to kill he didn't mean he was a murderer (unless he was naked), and when he said 'Bo Rhap' took him bloody ages he didn't mean he reincarnated several times, always covered in vital fluid, while writing it. > And yes, the early valve driven synthesizers were unreliable on stage and easily went out of tune. Some of them, not all of them. > And if not try finding the book "Are you ready Steve" by Steve Priest where he writes about their nightmares on stage when the synth ruined most versions of their 75 hit "Fox on the run". Though I'm not sure about it, I think they used an ARP Odyssey for that one. To get that sound they needed to set the filter on low-frequency oscillation, or maybe two oscillations (for the parallel octaves). That's like playing guitar with extra super light string while having loads of temperature changes and strumming it raucously or virtually 'abusing' in the strokes a la Jonny Greenwood. The Odyssey was still relatively new and it wouldn't take that sort of overload, but it doesn't mean all synths were unreliable. The total area of the Maldives is way smaller than many cities... does it mean all countries in Asia are microstates? > From "Hot Space" onwards there is a lot of computerised drumming on the Queen records A lot yes. 'Roger Taylor even stopped drumming on the records' - totally false statement. > Others feature basic programming with some live drums overdubbed. Indeed. But more often than not, drums were played live by Roger on acoustic kits. > And yes, there were still some real drums on some 80s tracks. Not some, but most. Electronic drums, synth-generated drums, drum computers and MIDI drums were used but still a minority. > Wasn't it you Mr Sebastian who recently tried to give me a lesson that everything is to be taken literally? Not quite. There are several different cases. Something like 'haven't spoken to you for like a hundred years' is obviously a figure of speech. Something like 'Hot Space was released in 1960' is a mistake, simple as that (unless of course you use a different calendar where 0 began 22 years after what's usually regarded, etc). > Can we agree on something, Mr Sebastian ? We obviously have a different perspective on music and will probably never agree. Sure, but 'probably never [agreeing]' doesn't mean we can't post comments. There's nothing wrong with not agreeing. There is, however, a lot wrong with using personal attacks (such as your sarcastic remarks when I've never attacked you personally). Some things do rely on perspectives (such as whether Hot Space is a good album or not), others are indeed black or white (such as whether Hot Space was released before or after The Game). > We should not bore the other people on this board with this. The only thing we should not do is insulting other people (like your 'Mr Everybody Else Is Wrong' comment). > So please ignore my "totally false statements" while I let you enjoy your unlimited knowledge..;-) My knowledge is very, very limited. I reckon over 99.99999999999999999% of the things that can be known are completely oblivious to me. But part of the remaining 0.00000000000000001% includes the following things: - Queen did use drum computers, MIDI drums, synth-generated drums and electronic drums, but those were still a minority. More often than not, it was Roger on acoustic kits. - Not all early synths were unrealiable. There are many variables involved. - Many things are up to opinion, others aren't. For instance, it's an opinion (and totally valid) to think The Works is a good album, or a bad album, whatever. But it's not up to personal opinion whether The Works was recorded in Japan or not. It wasn't, full stop. |
| Gregoryvincke 04.04.2010 06:42 |
Thistleboy 1980 wrote: I remember starting a thread about how March Of The Black Queen was the band's real masterpiece - well, blow me, I was wrong! It really, truly, is Body Language. Thanks ever so much for pointing it out to me, Gregory. What a real eye-opener.....I mean, it's been staring me in the face since 1982! Fuck Bo Rhap and the 70s stuff - I'm all for the gay disco bit. In fact, I listened to BL earlier and got so excited, a little bit of pee came out. Wow, this really is a refreshing, enlightening conversation. Why haven't we all come out as Body Language fans before? Can't wait for the Hot Space demos boxset from the archives!!!! Sexeee Bodyyyyyyeee.... Dear Thistleboy. You really moved me the way you described your penis incedent. The same thing is regularly happening to me when I listen to it, but I have always been too embarassed to talk about it with anyone. You are so brave to expose your little weakness. You are a true and sincere Body Language fan, and you deserve my utter respect. This is why Freddie wrote this masterpiece, this is what he wanted. Freddie would have been so proud of you if he had not been retired. As Freddie said : "Yeah sexy body sexy sexy body I want your body Baby you're hot" Amen |
| MisterCosmicc 19.04.2018 01:23 |
Ymmm |
| OhioMustapha 19.04.2018 23:38 |
that picture is creepy |
| Sheer Brass Neck 22.04.2018 02:35 |
Seb, you say there is no way that there were 180 voices (or tracks) on Bohemian Rhapsody. Or 256 voices on I'm not in love by 10cc. So are the 10cc guys full of shit or not good at math when stating this: "Each note of a chromatic scale was sung 16 times, so we got 16 tracks of three people singing for each note. That was Kevin, Lol and GiGi standing around a valve Neumann U67 in the studio, singing 'Aahhh' for around three weeks. I'm telling you; three bloody weeks. We eventually had 48 voices for each note of the chromatic scale, and since there are 13 notes in the chromatic scale, this made a total of 624 voices. My next problem was how to get all that into the track." |
| Vocal harmony 22.04.2018 13:29 |
I commented on the other thread about there being 180 voices on Bo Rhap. I thought I had come across a logical way to explain how there could be 108 different vocal tracks (not 180) but Seb seemed to brush this aside. Through the years I've read a few 10cc related interviews with regard to their writing and production and can find no reason why Queen wouldn't have taken a similar path. I guess we'll never know for sure, but even if Brian May or Roy Thomas Baker sat down and explained the construction of every line there would still be people on here claiming that it wasn't done that way. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 22.04.2018 15:11 |
^^^ Agree 100%. I don't know the answer, and maybe 634 or 180 voices are inflated, but given the math provided I could see how the artists believe their numbers. Using the example from the Ian Hunter discussion where Queen provided 27 voices, that was for one section of simple three part harmonies. In Bohemian Rhapsody, the "very, very frightening me" section is 5 part harmony. Each line sung 3 times is 15 "voices". "Beelzebub has a devil put aside" has six voices or lines. Tracked 3 times is 18 "voices", so those two sections are 33 alone. We'll never have an answer and part of it is band hype but I'm interested in the process so I don't dismiss the 180 the way others do, while acknowledging my knowledge is limited compared to some. |
| Sebastian 22.04.2018 17:59 |
Brian has explained how those voices were done, and that explanation leaves little doubt there were not 180 of them. 'Beelzebub' is six-part, but the top one is just Roger and he's single-tracked (hence: one voice, not nine), the bottom one is just Frederick (multi-tracks confirm so). So, six parts don't add up to 54 voices in that case, they add up to 40, and that's still way closer to zero than to 180. Frederick said they'd been trying to create a 160- to 200-piece choir EFFECT, some journalist took it to heart, averaged them at 180 (160 + 200, and then divided by two) and a legend was born. It was that simple. When people say 'Betty White is a like a million years old', you understand it's a hyperbole and leave it at that. There's no need to try to rationalise it as 'well, maybe they mean a million years on a planet which takes a leap around its nearest star in less time'. There's no need to try to justify it as 'well, perhaps she was alive in the year 997,982 BCE'. It's an inflated figure to mean 'she's very old'. That's it. Her actual age, according to Wikipedia, is 96. Not a million - 96. PS: According to what Ian said, the number of voices provided by Queen members on 'You Nearly Did Me in' would be 21, not 27 (Roger did the top part alone). That contradicts the comment by the other live witness... but either way, 21 and 27 are both far from 180. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 23.04.2018 01:41 |
^^^ Sure, and not here to argue but you said maybe 29 voices on BR. Not 180, but 29. How can you so sure when Brian describes the sessions as such around 13 minute mark?: link |
| Sebastian 23.04.2018 04:29 |
I'm willing to accept a figure between 25-ish and 40-ish. Not 134, not 150, not 160, not 180 and not 200. Same as I understand people saying 'Brazil have won a gazillion World Cups' doesn't really mean 'a gazillion' (which is indeterminate to begin with) but merely 'five' (which is still a lot). Same as, when Frederick said 'I dress to kill', he (hopefully) didn't actually confess to murder or manslaughter. Same as, when someone says they worked their arse off I know they (hopefully) don't literally mean they've got no backside anymore. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 23.04.2018 05:26 |
But you're very factual, Seb, so why do accept between 25 and 40 wish, but not 41+? You are confusing figures of speech (a "gazillion" World Cups, i "dress to kill") with what could be a quantifiable number. Albeit a number you don't believe based on methodology. If the two sections I've alluded to have 33 "voices", what about the other sections with multi tracked vocals. Do they add up to 7 to give the track 40 "voices", or do the combines sections 3 voices times 3 overdubs times the sections required equal 180? I honestly don't know, but in fairness no one else does and all of us are guessing. Using 10cc math as listed above, you could make a case that 634 vocal lines or "voices" were recorded. Or not :) |
| Invisible Woman 23.04.2018 08:06 |
Completely different musical styles, I don't think compare these two songs. I like that they had so many different styles throughout their career. |
| Vocal harmony 23.04.2018 12:56 |
Invisible Woman, yes they were different styles of music, but both Queen and 10cc featured a lot of multi tracked vocal sections in many of their 70's period songs, the recording process for both bands became a major part of what they did to achieve a signature sound. |
| Sebastian 23.04.2018 13:56 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: But you're very factual, Seb, so why do accept between 25 and 40 wish, but not 41+?40-ish does include 41+. Sheer Brass Neck wrote: You are confusing figures of speech (a "gazillion" World Cups, i "dress to kill") with what could be a quantifiable number.No, I'm not - the thousands of people who believe the 180 figure are. Sheer Brass Neck wrote: If the two sections I've alluded to have 33 "voices", what about the other sections with multi tracked vocals.They can also have 20-40ish voices. Sheer Brass Neck wrote: or do the combines sections 3 voices times 3 overdubs times the sections required equal 180?Again: Frederick said they were trying to re-create a 160- to 200-piece choir effect. That doesn't mean 10 people singing 'thunderbolt and lightning' and then 10 other people singing 'very very frightening me', etc. That means they were trying to sound as a choir which had 160-200 members. You can, of course, try and justify it anyway you want ('maybe Frederick did dress to kill and we just never found out ... maybe five World Cups is a gazillion if we count them differently'). Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Using 10cc math as listed above, you could make a case that 634 vocal lines or "voices" were recorded. Or not :)'Not' is by far more feasible. |
| Thistle 25.04.2018 17:58 |
It's all bullshit. No matter how many times a voice is replicated, it's the same voice. Ergo...there are only a few voices on Bo Rhap, and they belong to the members of Queen. I don't give a flying feck about jargon used when recording - it's still just the same 3 or 4 voices. Does that settle the debate? |
| Sheer Brass Neck 25.04.2018 22:30 |
^^^ No |
| Thistle 26.04.2018 02:21 |
Well eff off then ;) :p |
| Saint Jiub 26.04.2018 02:42 |
If the same person sings a melody and then sings a harmony as a double-track ... is that two voices? If the same person sings a melody and then sings the melody again as a double track ... is that two voices? link |
| Sebastian 26.04.2018 14:16 |
How many Bayern Munich footballers were playing yesterday at the game? Correct answers include 11 (the maximum amount of BM players at any point) and 14 (assuming they used all their allowed substitutions), but it's not a matter of 'well, the Boateng who played on the second minute was different to the Boateng who played on the first minute and then the one just before getting injured, etc., therefore we had 532,234,234 different Bayern Munich players'.
If an actual 200-piece choir (i.e. 200 different people) sing a performance of, say, a Bach cantata, it counts as 200 voices. It's not a matter of ... 'well, on the first four bars the alto section didn't join in, so that's 150... and then for the next three bars there are all parts so that's 200 so we've got 350 so far... and then on bars 8-9 there are no basses and no tenors so we've got 100 voices, so far we've got 450 voices...'
It doesn't work like that.
If there are nine voices on 'Scaramouche - Fandango' and then 37 voices on 'Thunderbolt - frightening me', it still counts as a 37-piece choir, not as 46 (and counting).
Panchgani wrote: If the same person sings a melody and then sings a harmony as a double-track ... is that two voices? If the same person sings a melody and then sings the melody again as a double track ... is that two voices?Yes and yes. However, if there are nine backing vocals on a phrase and then ten backing vocals on the next one, it doesn't count as 19 backing vocals... |
| Thistle 26.04.2018 15:36 |
Sebastian wrote: If an actual 200-piece choir (i.e. 200 different people) sing a performance of, say, a Bach cantata, it counts as 200 voices. It's not a matter of ... 'well, on the first four bars the alto section didn't join in, so that's 150... and then for the next three bars there are all parts so that's 200 so we've got 350 so far... and then on bars 8-9 there are no basses and no tenors so we've got 100 voices, so far we've got 450 voices...' It doesn't work like that.You should have stopped right there - that's what I was driving at above, Double tracking doesn't mean there's more voices - it means there's the same amount of voices, copied. If I take a picture of you and then use photoshop to add another picture of you, that doesn't make two of you. You're still only one person. Queen only had 4 members, and they each had just one voice. I know, I know....it's technical jargon to say double tracking is two voices (or however many voices have been duplicated) but for me, it's a load of nonsense. 4 people cannot be 8, 16, 32 or 356. There's a small amount of voices on Bo Rhap and that's the logical answer. |
| aristide1 26.04.2018 16:54 |
It's not about the three (not four) separate vocalists, it's about how many separate vocal tracks they used. 180 is pure journalist speculation based on the declared intention to reproduce a huge choir of up to 200 people. The actual number of overdubs is unknown since no one counted them. Most of them have been deleted after making the submixes. Brian gave an explanation for the process of doubling, tripling, bouncing. He also mentioned the number of voices - "a lot". We may try to guess, and 30-40 seems reasonable, but the image of Freddie asking anxious for "more Galileos", combined with the huge budget spent on studio time, point to a higher, unpredictable number. |
| Sebastian 26.04.2018 17:38 |
It's about semantics: - If Brian records a rhythm guitar part and then puts a solo on top of it, it's two guitars played by one person. - By that same pattern, if someone records a vocal part and then doubles it, that's two voices recorded by one person. 'Bo Rhap' has 25-40-ish voices sung by three people, as well as a full drum plus an extra snare, two timpani, a gong and some cymbal rolls - all done by one person, 10-12-ish guitars played by one person, three tracks of one single-tracked bass (even if it looks/sounds contradictory) played by one person and two tracks of a single-tracked piano played by one person. |
| Thistle 26.04.2018 17:56 |
I know, I get it - I just disagree with it. As you say, it's semantics. For what it's worth, your two examples don't add up. If Brian records a rhythm part using one guitar and puts a solo over the top, with another, that's two guitars = 1 person. But you can't then say "by the same pattern" voices are the same idea - because it's not the same thing. It's still only one voice. Brian has several guitars, he only has one voice. As I keep saying, I know the jargon - I just don't agree with it. Aristide - yes, I know. I only gave the number 4 as an example. |
| Saint Jiub 26.04.2018 18:46 |
If I sang the melody as a tenor, and then double-tracked the harmony in falsetto, would you consider that one or two voices? Obviously it will sound like different singers, because you have never heard me sing. )p |
| Saint Jiub 26.04.2018 19:02 |
If I sing the melody as an alto, and my identical twin sister simultaneously sings the melody the same way, is that one or two voices? |
| Sebastian 26.04.2018 22:34 |
Thistleboy1980 wrote: Brian has several guitars, he only has one voice.He could've recorded both guitar parts using the same guitar (the Red Special). In that case, it's still two guitars played by one person using just one guitar. |
| Thistle 26.04.2018 23:05 |
That's not how your initial response read to me earlier, but I was heading out to work. Going back over it with more time, I see you mean using the same guitar twice (I thought you meant using two separate guitars). Again, the jargon may allow for that being "two guitars" - to me it's one guitar playing two different pieces. I GET the jargon (as I've said) I just think it's illogical. One guitar is one guitar, no matter how many layers - it's the same guitar. If he uses another - then it's two. One voice, regardless of how many takes, is still the same voice, so one. Fuck the jargon, it only opens itself up to arguments and false info, as fully illustrated in this thread. |
| Thistle 26.04.2018 23:07 |
Panchgani wrote: If I sang the melody as a tenor, and then double-tracked the harmony in falsetto, would you consider that one or two voices? Obviously it will sound like different singers, because you have never heard me sing. )pLOL. Still one voice. It's the same with people doing impressions - "The man with 1000 voices" (and other such guff). Absolute nonsense. It's still just one voice - you're just using it differently. |
| Sebastian 27.04.2018 03:49 |
I suppose, just to be pedantic, that it'd be more correct in that case to label them 'four vocal tracks containing the same voice' or '6-8 guitar layers played on one guitar, by two different people' ('A Kind of Magic'). Still, regardless of what you call it, 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices, it hasn't got 180 vocal overdubs, it hasn't got 180 vocal layers, 180 vocal tracks, a 180-piece choir or anything else with that '180' figure attached to it, except for myths, false legends, exaggerations, inflated figures, people's imagination and, of course, 'fanon'. |
| cmsdrums 30.04.2018 14:27 |
The 'jargon' in the recording world for additional vocal parts would generally (and even then not definitively!) be to refer to 'vocals' rather than 'voices'. eg "that track has got 8 vocals on it" would pretty much generally be taken to mean that are 8 vocal parts on it (whether lead, harmonies or double tracking), regardless of whether they are recorded by one singer or a combination of 2 or more. If however you said "that track has got 8 voices on it" it would generally mean 8 different singers, but perhaps all singing multiple parts several times, and so resulting in tens of even hundreds of "vocals". Therefore I would refer to Bo Rhap having three "voices" but 30 or 40+ "vocals", but no way near the fabled "180" (which however I think was originally simply a figure of speech to emphasise the layering, overall sound and complexity of the vocals and not in any way an attempt to be definitive or deceive anyone). Guitar-wise things are probably simpler....one guitar performance is "one guitar part/track" - if that is then repeated (perhaps the same part but with a different sound, or panned differently) that gives "two guitars" on the piece (regardless of whether it is the same physical guitar being played by the same player). Several more different guitar parts may be added, each one becoming an additional "guitar part/track" on the song. Anyways....all good fun discussing our interpretation of recording semantics! :-) |
| Sebastian 30.04.2018 21:40 |
Good points! |
| kokax 01.05.2018 21:13 |
On Queenonline someone mentioned (correct me if my memory is wrong) that Body Languages' opening riff supposedly was inspired by this : link Any opinion ? |
| Art Lawyer 01.05.2018 21:30 |
Body language is great! Especially live in Tokorozawa. One of the best Freddie's live performance. :) |
| Holly2003 04.05.2018 12:18 |
kokax wrote: On Queenonline someone mentioned (correct me if my memory is wrong) that Body Languages' opening riff supposedly was inspired by this : link Any opinion ?It certainly sounds like it. |
| mike hunt 04.05.2018 18:50 |
BODY Language is Queen's lowest point as far as their hits, but It's better than a few songs they did. Not my least favorite By any means....especially the Video, the part when he starts dancing with those big ladies towards the end. Makes me laugh every time. Classic Freddie! Unfortunately the song wasn't all that good. |
| MisterCosmicc 07.05.2018 19:39 |
Love Body Language ??. Love Bohemian Rhapsody too. Both hits in the USA. |