QueenZone discussion #1225393

rhyeking wrote: I really discovered Queen in the spring of 1993. Freddie was gone and the band had seemlingly come to an end. I was at a point in my teens where I seeking out something different from what my peers were listening to (Nirvana, Pearl Jam, bad '90s dance music). I was delving into the '60 and '70s. I bought Classic Queen and was hooked. I began buying the albums and was impressed at the many directions Queen chose to take in their career. It's funny that even though Hot Space took time to grow on me, not once did I think, "How stupid, disco and funk!" After all, who was I to judge? Maybe it would be different if I'd been a fan in the '70s and HS was new. Maybe, but probably not. Hot Space exists for me the way all Queen releases exist. They simply *are," I like most, but not all, but I accept them equally and try to understand what went into making them and what the enviroment and inspiration was around them. I don't really evaluate them, even if I don't like a song. An easy trap to get into is: I don't like it, therefore it sucks. Or another common trap is comparing releases: The Works is no Queen II, therefore it sucks. I say to you, in the spirit of a friendly challenge, try to step out of yourself and look at a work objectively. Ask yourself the following questions: What inspired this direct in the band? What else were they doing, either in their solo careers or in the trends influencing them at the time? How much craftsmanship went into the work and why did they make certain creative decisions? There are no right or wrong answers and no one is expecting that you'll suddenly fall in love with that which you previously disliked, but maybe...just maybe...you won't not-like it as much.  

Sebastian wrote: > I fully agree with you, the work of every band should always be seen connected to the times they lived in. So I suppose 'A Night at the Opera' had to be an Osmonds-ersatz thing and 'The Game' should sound like the Village People. > Multitracking was no longer exciting. 'Hot Space' has a lot of multi-tracking, by the way.

master marathon runner wrote: Hot Space is a delightful little album, never understood the bemoaning. I'm continually shocked by criticism of 'The Works' on Queenzone, always regarded it as Queen at a very high standard .' Radio Ga Ga,' ' Keep passing the open Windows', 'Machines' ,' Is This the World we Created', a track performed live to the world ! , .Sorry, but Queen were comfortably coasting here.Perhaps it proves i am truly a Queen fan. Master Marathon Runner 

Sebastian wrote: Multitracking existed since mid-50's. It was not new.

DanCorson wrote: The last two or three years, Hot Space has been the Queen record I've listened to most. It's a lot of fun!

rhyeking wrote: Never in my life did I think I'd pull this counter out on a Queen forum, BUT.... > It is absolutely and completely impossible to say anything truly objective about anything, least of all a work of art >>So, is 2+2=4 subjective? For the record I'm not saying it is, and I'm not saying it isn't, but I'm interested in your take on it. Well, that's assuming you're using the more common decimal system of mathmatics, which is base 10. The less-common, but scientifically valid Ternary (base 3) numeral system would read more like: 2 + 2 = 11  Sometimes, everything is not as it seems, huh? :-)

USQUEENFAN wrote: LOL   I have given my opinion on several topics on queens sinking popularity from hot space till the reemergance of their iconic status in 92 here in the states, first off hot space was an experimental (thats me being kind describing in my opinion ) album it did have a few stellar moments put out the fire life is real basically side two, you see here in the states in the 80s and 90s rock music was catagorized unlike in great britain ive heard broadcasts of capital one radio during a block of music in london i had heard a human league song than immediatly following that an iron maiden song that was unheard of here in the states you would have current rock metal stations and new wave punk new romantic stations and pop top 40 stations that included a poppier  track of all geners   queen built their reputation here in the states as a rock band that was the best live band on the planet which stands true to this very day, and disco in 82 was dead but the funny thing was madonna was just about to release her debut self titled album and my sister had purchased the LP and i heard her playing it and screamed what the fuck disco is that she said its not disco its "dance music"  to me it sounded like a disco collection from the late 70s and still does   now rock fans especially queens fans loved queen for their sheer live performances and even in 82 they sold out most their rock n america tour they certainly did here in LA i went to two of their four shows in the greater LA area and if they would of toured to support the works in america im certain it would of exceeded the hot space tour and have assisted the works to be in the top five albums in billboard and by the way THE WORKS IS A BRILLIANT ALBUM

DanCorson wrote: The last two or three years, Hot Space has been the Queen record I've listened to most. It's a lot of fun!

  Holly2003 wrote: Someone raised a good point a while back that simply changing the running order of Hot Space would've made for a better album. I agree with that, to a point. However, the album's main failing isn that it doesn't have any stand-out songs like Somebody To Love. It's Late, Liar etc.* It's all pretty average stuff, and in any event, others were doing the funk thang much better than  Queen.. *Under Pressure is probably the one song that has the Queen mojo. Staying Power's a distant second place. 

GratefulFan wrote:

       

That's it right there.  You stole my point. The sin of Hot Space, so rarely committed by Queen ever before that, was that what they were trying to do was being done much better by other people.  Worse, already had been done much better by other people.  Hot Space was released past the crest of the wave they were trying to ride, and for the first time ever (but not the last), the work as a whole invited the view that they were capable of being a merely average band.* It was a paradigm shift in popular perception that dogged them for the rest of the decade.

GratefulFan wrote:

      Holly2003 wrote:   Someone raised a good point a while back that simply changing the running order of Hot Space would've made for a better album. I agree with that, to a point. However, the album's main failing isn that it doesn't have any stand-out songs like Somebody To Love. It's Late, Liar etc.* It's all pretty average stuff, and in any event, others were doing the funk thang much better than  Queen.. *Under Pressure is probably the one song that has the Queen mojo. Staying Power's a distant second place.   

That's it right there.  You stole my point. The sin of Hot Space, so rarely committed by Queen ever before that, was that what they were trying to do was being done much better by other people.  Worse, already had been done much better by other people.  Hot Space was released past the crest of the wave they were trying to ride, and for the first time ever (but not the last), the work as a whole invited the view that they were capable of being a merely average band.* It was a paradigm shift in popular perception that dogged them for the rest of the decade.

Sebastian wrote: > Even the Beatles recorded most of their stuff on 4 track. And on 4 track, multi-tracking was possible. > It was in 1968, that EMI slowly upgraded to 8-track. And this was a leading studio in England! Trident had done it before. > So whether you like it or not, multitracking in the way Queen and many of their contemporaries made use of  wasn't possible before. Multitracking 'in the wat Queen et al made use of' wasn't EASILY possible before, but it WAS possible. By the way, my point was that multi-tracking already existed, not about multi-tracking on 24 or 32. It's like somebody saying 'cars were new in 1998'. No, they weren't: they existed for a while before that. 'Whether you like it or not, Ferrari F300 was first used in 1998'. Sure, but it doesn't mean cars did not exist before. Same here: before early-to-mid 70's, people didn't use 24- or 32-track tapes. But it doesn't mean multi-tracking didn't exist.

master marathon runner wrote: Hot Space is a delightful little album, never understood the bemoaning. I'm continually shocked by criticism of 'The Works' on Queenzone, always regarded it as Queen at a very high standard .' Radio Ga Ga,' ' Keep passing the open Windows', 'Machines' ,' Is This the World we Created', a track performed live to the world ! , .Sorry, but Queen were comfortably coasting here.Perhaps it proves i am truly a Queen fan. Master Marathon Runner 

rhyeking wrote: What inspired this direct in the band?  

  mike hunt wrote: funny stuff..."dogged them the rest of the decade"  you know that some of queen's most popular songs were in the 80's don't you?.....you know Queen won best band of the 80's in england don't you?....you know most of their 80's albums peaked at #1 don't you?....Not bad for average music i must say,   or maybe some people, or a lot of people actually think the 80's stuff is better than average....you know that is a possibility don't you?.....

  mooghead wrote:  

      rhyeking wrote:   What inspired this direct in the band?    

Another One Bites The Dust is to blame.

Amazon wrote: I think that the Works is a good, but not great, album. It has IMO one of Queen's best songs of the 80's in Keep Passing The Open Windows, it has several other great songs.

  Sebastian wrote: By the way, 'Good Vibrations' also predates Queen's multi-tracking efforts.  

Sebastian wrote: TBF, considering Roger's looks, he'd probably nailed more than one Cornish bird by the time he was fourteen (i.e. three years before 'Good Vibrations'). And Fred could've had a Catholic priest babysitting him too.

mooghead wrote:

rhyeking wrote: What inspired this direct in the band?  

Another One Bites The Dust is to blame.

Sebastian wrote: > Oh well...you don't want to understand it... Of course I do. I understand the following: * Queen still used loads of multi-tracking in Hot Space, rendering your 'Multitracking was no longer exciting' comment incorrect. * Multi-tracking existed long before Queen, rendering your 'multitracking in the way Queen and many of their contemporaries made use of wasn't possible before' comment incorrect. > But it took a more then a decade, until the first studios owned these machines Sure, but when they did (mroe than a decade after Les Paul) it was still long before Queen. > and it took even more years until multitracking became an art form and bands started to make heavy use of it. Which still doesn't mean it was new. Beatles multitracked loads of things, so did the Beach Boys and several others, long before Queen even debuted. > In the 60s for example multitracking was even seen by many artists as a betrayal as it could not be reproduced live on stage. It still happens a lot in the 2010's. So? Queen weren't an act that cared about whether other people saw something as betrayal or not. > I recommend you the book "Good Vibrations" by Mark Cunningham. It's a fantastic voyage into the history of recording.     By the way, 'Good Vibrations' also predates Queen's multi-tracking efforts.

  GratefulFan wrote:  

              mike hunt wrote:       funny stuff..."dogged them the rest of the decade"  you know that some of queen's most popular songs were in the 80's don't you?.....you know Queen won best band of the 80's in england don't you?....you know most of their 80's albums peaked at #1 don't you?....Not bad for average music i must say,   or maybe some people, or a lot of people actually think the 80's stuff is better than average....you know that is a possibility don't you?.....      

Yeah. It was late-ish and I was trying to wrap up the point and probably could have taken more care with that final part of it.  I used 'popular perception' because in my head that made it different from 'critical perception' (because the critics pretty much always thought they were crap), but you're right - that does seem to dismiss the popularity/success of the music at the time in parts of the world. However popular doesn't mean great, and better than average isn't much of a match against time. I think most of the 80's work was good in the same way that all kinds of music is good: slick, catchy, radio friendly - and ultimately destined to be nostalgia pieces languishing in collections, largely unplayed 10 years on.  20 or 25 albums hit number one every year and we don't keep piling them on top of an ever growing list of classics we can't imagine music history without.  We filter and refilter and filter again, and the Queen songs that nobody would question have truly endured (by any measure) are virtually all from work that preceded Hot Space (always excepting the brilliant Under Pressure).  Hot Space was the beginning of all that would eventually be judged as good, but not great, by processes and forces of the future.

rhyeking wrote:

      mooghead wrote:      

              rhyeking wrote:       What inspired this direct in the band?        

Another One Bites The Dust is to blame.

Well, yes, but there were other factors involved too. Freddie was doing the gay disco thing in Munich, which seemed to influence his pop-dance bent on this and Mr. Bad Guy. The band was in and out of the studio between South American tours for a year, which probably resulted somewhat in "Las Palabras." The band's relationship with Billy Squier almost certainly influenced them; listen to "Emotions In Motion" and tell me it doesn't have a resemblance to Hot Space material. Freddie's work with Michael Jackson can be traced to this period (and with the band, it was even earlier, as he pushed them to release "Dust" as a single). And most obviously, working with Bowie likely influenced them, even after he finished work on "Under Pressure." Bowie was between his Scary Monsters and Let's Dance albums, the latter being very pop-dance-funk laced.

GratefulFan wrote:

Amazon wrote: I think that the Works is a good, but not great, album. It has IMO one of Queen's best songs of the 80's in Keep Passing The Open Windows, it has several other great songs.

Except that Joe Jackson called that song Steppin' Out and did it way better 4 years earlier.  ;)

rhyeking wrote: "Stepping Out" by Joe Jackson is a good song. I especially like the piano. Before someone brought it up here, I never considered any similarities between "Windows"  and "Stepping Out". Frankly, I still don't see any similarities beyond the superficial use of instruments. It's the same with people saying "The Invisible Man" sounds like Ray Parker, Jr.'s "Ghostbusters," which other people say sounds like "I Want A New Drug" by Huey Lewis And The News. Where does it end? Enough talented people write enough music, you'll get the odd passing similarity, I guess.  Another example is "Blockbuster" by Sweet and "The Jean Genie" by David Bowie, both of whom say it was pure coincidence. 

mike hunt wrote:

  rhyeking wrote:  

              mooghead wrote:              

                              rhyeking wrote:               What inspired this direct in the band?                

Another One Bites The Dust is to blame.

Well, yes, but there were other factors involved too. Freddie was doing the gay disco thing in Munich, which seemed to influence his pop-dance bent on this and Mr. Bad Guy. The band was in and out of the studio between South American tours for a year, which probably resulted somewhat in "Las Palabras." The band's relationship with Billy Squier almost certainly influenced them; listen to "Emotions In Motion" and tell me it doesn't have a resemblance to Hot Space material. Freddie's work with Michael Jackson can be traced to this period (and with the band, it was even earlier, as he pushed them to release "Dust" as a single). And most obviously, working with Bowie likely influenced them, even after he finished work on "Under Pressure." Bowie was between his Scary Monsters and Let's Dance albums, the latter being very pop-dance-funk laced.

Let's not get in to this "freddie fault" bullshit.  Of course freddie was a big part of the band, but the others had a say.   John was obviously into it.  roger alway's loves the new wave, dance stuff. for some reason people see roger as the rocker of the band,  He was more new wave in the late 70's and 80's.  Brian?....the rocker,  though those rockers were getting stale in the early 80's.   Also, keep in mind if it wasn't for freddie during the hot space era there wouldn't be a Queen.  From what I heard freddie was the one who kept things going.  The others were more occupied with the family, kids and all that.  

Blue Roses Unlimited wrote:

  mike hunt wrote:  

      rhyeking wrote:      

                              mooghead wrote:                              

                                                              rhyeking wrote:                               What inspired this direct in the band?                                

Another One Bites The Dust is to blame.

Well, yes, but there were other factors involved too. Freddie was doing the gay disco thing in Munich, which seemed to influence his pop-dance bent on this and Mr. Bad Guy. The band was in and out of the studio between South American tours for a year, which probably resulted somewhat in "Las Palabras." The band's relationship with Billy Squier almost certainly influenced them; listen to "Emotions In Motion" and tell me it doesn't have a resemblance to Hot Space material. Freddie's work with Michael Jackson can be traced to this period (and with the band, it was even earlier, as he pushed them to release "Dust" as a single). And most obviously, working with Bowie likely influenced them, even after he finished work on "Under Pressure." Bowie was between his Scary Monsters and Let's Dance albums, the latter being very pop-dance-funk laced.

Let's not get in to this "freddie fault" bullshit.  Of course freddie was a big part of the band, but the others had a say.   John was obviously into it.  roger alway's loves the new wave, dance stuff. for some reason people see roger as the rocker of the band,  He was more new wave in the late 70's and 80's.  Brian?....the rocker,  though those rockers were getting stale in the early 80's.   Also, keep in mind if it wasn't for freddie during the hot space era there wouldn't be a Queen.  From what I heard freddie was the one who kept things going.  The others were more occupied with the family, kids and all that.  

Also, Freddie was in doing the gay scene in New York at the time of Hot Space.

  GratefulFan wrote:  

      rhyeking wrote:   "Stepping Out" by Joe Jackson is a good song. I especially like the piano. Before someone brought it up here, I never considered any similarities between "Windows"  and "Stepping Out". Frankly, I still don't see any similarities beyond the superficial use of instruments. It's the same with people saying "The Invisible Man" sounds like Ray Parker, Jr.'s "Ghostbusters," which other people say sounds like "I Want A New Drug" by Huey Lewis And The News. Where does it end? Enough talented people write enough music, you'll get the odd passing similarity, I guess.  Another example is "Blockbuster" by Sweet and "The Jean Genie" by David Bowie, both of whom say it was pure coincidence.   

Amazon wrote: I just listened to Steppin' Out and I have to say that I disagree. I think that KPTOW is superior. It's not a perfect song, by any means (the whole 'love is all you need' isn't very original which has always really surprised me*), but I do think it's a terrific pop song. Regarding whether or not Queen became an average group during the 80's, I think it's interesting as I agree and I disagree. I agree in the sense that I don't think Queen were as inventive in 1982-1989 as they were from 1973 to 1980. When I think of Queenian creativity and experimentation, I think of the 70's, rather than the 80's. However, I disagree because IMO the 80's still produced its fair share of classics. Excluding The Game, which until the 90's, was arguably Queen's last masterpiece, the 80's albums produced IMO the following classics: Hot Space produced Staying Power,  Put Out the Fire and Las Palabras de Amor, as well as Under Pressure which IMO is extremely overrated but is still a very good, if not great, song. I also think that Dancer is extremely underrated. The Works produced KPTOW, Radio Gaga, I Want To Break Free, Hammer To Fall, Machines and Is This The World We Created. A Kind of Magic produced Friends Will Be Friends, Who Wants To Live Forever (another extremely overrated song IMO) and Princes of the Universe. The Miracle produced I Want It All and Was It All Worth It. One could also add Breakthru. Not all of these songs are masterpieces, and one could debate where they stand against the best of Queen's 70's work, but when I look at the 80's (post-The Game), I think of these songs, and based on these songs, Queen during the 80's were IMO still extraordinary. *This is off-topic, but the reason I remain surprised by the fact that 'love is all you need' in KPTOW isn't particularly original is because IMO Queen were among the greatest and most original lyricists of all time. Queenpedia made a comment that their lyrics were never anything to write home about. I passionately disagree with this.

mike hunt wrote:

  Blue Roses Unlimited wrote:  

      mike hunt wrote:      

              rhyeking wrote:              

                                                              mooghead wrote:                                                              

                                                                                                                              rhyeking wrote:                                                               What inspired this direct in the band?                                                                

Another One Bites The Dust is to blame.

Well, yes, but there were other factors involved too. Freddie was doing the gay disco thing in Munich, which seemed to influence his pop-dance bent on this and Mr. Bad Guy. The band was in and out of the studio between South American tours for a year, which probably resulted somewhat in "Las Palabras." The band's relationship with Billy Squier almost certainly influenced them; listen to "Emotions In Motion" and tell me it doesn't have a resemblance to Hot Space material. Freddie's work with Michael Jackson can be traced to this period (and with the band, it was even earlier, as he pushed them to release "Dust" as a single). And most obviously, working with Bowie likely influenced them, even after he finished work on "Under Pressure." Bowie was between his Scary Monsters and Let's Dance albums, the latter being very pop-dance-funk laced.

Let's not get in to this "freddie fault" bullshit.  Of course freddie was a big part of the band, but the others had a say.   John was obviously into it.  roger alway's loves the new wave, dance stuff. for some reason people see roger as the rocker of the band,  He was more new wave in the late 70's and 80's.  Brian?....the rocker,  though those rockers were getting stale in the early 80's.   Also, keep in mind if it wasn't for freddie during the hot space era there wouldn't be a Queen.  From what I heard freddie was the one who kept things going.  The others were more occupied with the family, kids and all that.  

Also, Freddie was in doing the gay scene in New York at the time of Hot Space.

Freddie was in doing the gay scene in the 70's too, lol.

PrincessofTaylor wrote: Jumping into all this way late, but here's my two cents. I think as "hardcore" fans, our perspective might be a little skewed. For lots of people, when they think of Queen, they think of AOBTD, Under Pressure, Ga Ga, IWTBF, and BoRhap. My observation is that people don't even really acknowledge WATC and WWRY as songs by a band because they are so ingrained in U.S. sports culture. Those same people who think of strictly 80s Queen songs would all probably say that they "like Queen", not even realizing that the stuff from the 70s existed. Just a few weeks ago at his wedding, my father-in-law made reference to Queen "that great 80s band" - it made me absolutely cringe, but everyone else in the room nodded in agreement and headed out to the dance floor for AOBTD. For me personally, if I had to point non-Queen fans in the direction of their best songs, I'd start with their stuff in the 70s and I'd stay there for a rather long time. Then I'd probably take a leap to Innuendo, skipping the 80s entirely. That doesn't mean I still don't occasionally enjoy the 80s stuff. I just don't think it is a good example of why I think Queen is so great. I think the multitracking had a lot to do with that - their 80s stuff doesn't have the same sound to me. But the transition away from multitracking in the 80s is also part of what allowed Queen to become such a huge arena band - finally they could perform their songs in concert and sound relatively close to the studio version. I'm also not a fan of the dance stuff, but was there much else going on in music at that point in the 80s? People had gone Thriller-crazy so lots of bands changed their style to embrace that. At the very least, I think Queen showed their versatility by trying new things and honestly, if they had just recorded ANATO Part II, we'd all probably be complaining about that decision too!

              mike hunt wrote:              

                              PrincessofTaylor wrote:               Jumping into all this way late, but here's my two cents. I think as "hardcore" fans, our perspective might be a little skewed. For lots of people, when they think of Queen, they think of AOBTD, Under Pressure, Ga Ga, IWTBF, and BoRhap. My observation is that people don't even really acknowledge WATC and WWRY as songs by a band because they are so ingrained in U.S. sports culture. Those same people who think of strictly 80s Queen songs would all probably say that they "like Queen", not even realizing that the stuff from the 70s existed. Just a few weeks ago at his wedding, my father-in-law made reference to Queen "that great 80s band" - it made me absolutely cringe, but everyone else in the room nodded in agreement and headed out to the dance floor for AOBTD. For me personally, if I had to point non-Queen fans in the direction of their best songs, I'd start with their stuff in the 70s and I'd stay there for a rather long time. Then I'd probably take a leap to Innuendo, skipping the 80s entirely. That doesn't mean I still don't occasionally enjoy the 80s stuff. I just don't think it is a good example of why I think Queen is so great. I think the multitracking had a lot to do with that - their 80s stuff doesn't have the same sound to me. But the transition away from multitracking in the 80s is also part of what allowed Queen to become such a huge arena band - finally they could perform their songs in concert and sound relatively close to the studio version. I'm also not a fan of the dance stuff, but was there much else going on in music at that point in the 80s? People had gone Thriller-crazy so lots of bands changed their style to embrace that. At the very least, I think Queen showed their versatility by trying new things and honestly, if they had just recorded ANATO Part II, we'd all probably be complaining about that decision too!              

Depends where your from i guess...here in NY Queen are considered a 70's band,  With a few hits in the early 80's.

mike hunt wrote: History has proven Queen were magic with freddie,   Not so much without him. 

  Sebastian wrote: Of course I'm not saying it was exactly like that (and if you think I am, then there's a person taking things way too literally here and it's not me), I'm just saying I like the message given (regardless of the fact it's not meant to be deep or serious as it's merely a promo video for a song written for a fiction film, and it's not by any means a statement on the way they worked [and if you think I'm implying otherwise, then there's a person taking things way too literally here and it's not me]). The four Queen members were unique and irreplaceable, that's obvious. However, I like the message given in the video (and that's the extent of it). Is it fiction? Of course it is. But I like it: without Fred, they're tramps, then he comes in and hocus pocus, and when he leaves they're tramps again. Is it fiction? Of course it is (though it may be subtly prophetic in a way, depending on how you look at it). But I like it. Do you? Fine. Don't you? Fine. But I'm not issuing any profound statement demonising or underrating John's, Roger's and Brian's role. All I said was: Though I'm not very fond of the song, I do like the video and the message it gives: without Freddie, they're tramps, with him, it's magic! He leaves and they're tramps again. Is it based on a true story? No. But I like it. I like it.

Sebastian wrote: > And yet you don't want to understand.... That statement speaks more about you than about me. Maybe the one who doesn't want to understand is not me. > Between Les Paul and Brian May you won't find famous people in rock-music who multitracked one instrument dozens of times. And Les Paul also did the same treatment to Mary Fords voice. Actually, Brian rarely multitracked one instrument dozens of times. More often than not it was three or four times. Which had been done in the 60's. > but one singer building a complete choir was a thing of the 70s. Paul built a complete choir in 'Wild Honey Pie'. By the way 'Bo Rhap' has three singers building a complete choir, which made the process three times easier. > You could not have done "Bohemian Rhapsody" or 10cc's "I'm not in love" in the 60s with four track. Impossible! Of course it's not impossible. It would've taken a lot more effort, bouncing, the sound quality would've been vastly inferior because of the multiple-generation  recordings. But it wouldn't have been impossible.

Sebastian wrote: Only 'Cool Cat' (where he doesn't appear) and 'Body Language' (where he plays for about three seconds) actually have 'too little of Brian May'. 

rhyeking wrote: "Stepping Out" by Joe Jackson is a good song. I especially like the piano. Before someone brought it up here, I never considered any similarities between "Windows"  and "Stepping Out". Frankly, I still don't see any similarities beyond the superficial use of instruments. It's the same with people saying "The Invisible Man" sounds like Ray Parker, Jr.'s "Ghostbusters," which other people say sounds like "I Want A New Drug" by Huey Lewis And The News.  

Sebastian wrote: They could've done it by having four 4-track tape-recorders and then using them simultaneously. It would have taken them a lot more work, the result would've been a lot less spectacular (in terms of sound quality), it would've cost them a lot more money, but it would have been possible, which is my point all in all.

Sebastian wrote: > Multitracking as an artform is a thing of the 70s and cannot be reproduced live on stage. Multi-tracking from the 60's, 80's, 90's, 00's or 10's also cannot be reproduced live on stage. > Brian May could never play "Procession"...they could never do "March of the Black Queen", they could never play the complete "Bohemian Rhapsody" live. They could never play "Killer Queen"...."Bicycle Race". The list is endless.... Actually, they could. In stripped form of course, but they could.

Sebastian wrote: > Well Mr. Sebastian, they could not. Otherwise they would have.... What a ridiculous argument. Based on that, Fred couldn't have jumped a cliff otherwise he would have. Brian couldn't destroy the Red Special, otherwise he would have. Fred was physically incapable of wearing a blue t-shirt to the Wembley concert, otherwise he would have. > Their 70s trademark sound created by multitracking could never be reproduced live. Point! Techinically, nothing could be reproduced live as every time a person sings breaths differently, every time fingers play the piano they stress the keys differently, etc. > You can't have 5 Freddies on stage. No, but you can have Brian and Roger doing the missing harmonies. For a guitar choir, you could have Brian playing both parts simultaneously, or John joining with another guitar, etc. They decided not to recreate the sound of the records, and it was great since it made the whole live experience different. But it doesn't mean they couldn't have done it. The result wouldn't have been exactly the same but yes, had they wanted to, they could've gotten as close as possible. > So...it's hopeless....I'm speechless. And I lose interest in this fruitless discussion. It's your problem, not mine. > And please don't accuse me of personal attacks, I do have the right to 'accuse' you of that, as I've never attacked you personally, but you have. Totally unfair. > you obviously don't notice how you make people look like idiots when you put everything down I don't make anybody feel like idiot. And I don't put everything down. Again, if you say 'Hot Space is better than The Game, it's your opinion and it's neither more valid nor less valid than mine (which is the other way around). However, if you say 'Hot Space was released before The Game', then I can tell you 'no, it wasn't' because it wasn't. You said or implied (don't remember your exact words) Roger's drumming was largely (or chiefly) replaced by machines. Which wasn't. So I pointed it out. That doesn't make you look like an idiot, it simply corrects a mistake (and that is a mistake since that is a B/W situation). Same for you saying there's little of Brian May in the tracks. > that doesn't fit into your world. I haven't got a world, so your statement is clearly false. > I'm out of this discussion. It's your decision. It doesn't change the fact your drum/Brian comments were wrong and doesn't change the fact multi-tracking is not exclusive to the 70's, and it doesn't change the fact there is a lot of multitracking in Hot Space, and it doesn't change the fact that I haven't made personal attack against you while you have. > Sebastian, I will simply say that if you think it's about me not understanding your post, and if you think that your posts about May being a lesser guitarist than Petrucci were subjective, then we have a different view of history. And which view would it be?

      Sebastian wrote:   On 'Body Language' there's very little of Brian May. On 'Cool Cat' there's no Brian May. On the rest of the album there is more than a little, full stop. Of course, there's the subjective point of whether he 'felt' what he was playing or whatever, but unless you can read minds there's no way to know that. It's like speculating whether he had a red t-shirt while recording the tracks. And what's your excuse for the drum computer thing? By the way, your comments about me being full of theory are again a personal attack, which suggests you either have an obsession with me, or you simply can't accept you were wrong. In either case, you're a lot closer to the 'wall' you mention. And as you correctly pointed out, you contradicted yourself, adding to the overall possibility that you do have a lot of insecurities.  

  Sebastian wrote: Let's say the 'too little' thing's a grey area (though I disagree, but I suppose I agree to disagree). What's the excuse for drums allegedly being chiefly computerised? What's the excuse for those nasty comments about me done entirely without provocation? And by the way, if you think I'm taking things too literally, then the solution's simple: don't take my comments literally. If I say 'there's not too little of Brian in Hot Space', you can assume I'm saying it metaphorically. Or is it OK for you to take my comments literally but it's not OK for me to take yours?