| Kacoblin 04.07.2010 16:38 |
From what i have observed people seem to dislike this little homage to the Beach boys Wall of sound. I don't understand why it's so bad in taste for some of you guys? I can understand within reason criticizm for Hot space or The works. But ever since i personally listened to Side Black of Queen II, it blew me sky high. I guess everyones opinion is different! So tell me here in this thread, what do you think of this gem? |
| rhyeking 04.07.2010 17:27 |
I love "Funny How Love Is." Some people hate it, but I've always loved it and think it's perfect on Queen II. I agree that "Loser In The End," though a decent song, doesn't quite fit QII. It doesn't throw me off the album or anything, but it's the only non-fantasy-styled song there. In a way, it's too *modern* and real-world. It would be fine on another album, even Queen 1, but Queen II is sooo close to being a full-on fantasy concept album. Sorry, I got off the point. Here's what I said in another post, regarding FHLI: *** It's a personal preference thing, for sure, but I don't think I'll ever understand people's dislike for "Funny How Love Is." "The March Of The Black Queen" builds at the end and FHLI sustains that crescendo for about three minutes with a wall of sound, like we just climbed out of a dark and dangerous place and are standing triumphantly atop a mountain! The song just soars! Anyway...obviously, I like it. *** |
| Kamenliter 04.07.2010 18:39 |
Some terrific comments, RhyeKing...I too enjoy 'FHLI'. |
| panasonic 04.07.2010 20:15 |
For me the song is an obvious homage to the the Phil Spector style of production for which I loath. Basically it's about adding as many accoustic guitars, choirs and in Phil Spector's case orchestra's to a recording until its saturated. Then the next step is to apply a huge amount of echo to the top until it all turns to mud. What you end up with is just a huge amount of noise with no definition and usually no trebble. A great example of this is George Harrison's All Things Must Pass. The songs are great, the production to me is woefull. |
| rhyeking 04.07.2010 20:58 |
panasonic wrote: For me the song is an obvious homage to the the Phil Spector style of production for which I loath. Basically it's about adding as many accoustic guitars, choirs and in Phil Spector's case orchestra's to a recording until its saturated. Then the next step is to apply a huge amount of echo to the top until it all turns to mud. What you end up with is just a huge amount of noise with no definition and usually no trebble. A great example of this is George Harrison's All Things Must Pass. The songs are great, the production to me is woefull. ============================== More accurately, what Spector did was broadcast the playback of the music in realtime with the performance and recording, filling the studio with sound so that nothing was dominant and nothing was lost. The whole point was to assault the listener with a juggernaut of music. Spector hated the dainty, small production of the time and thought music should be grand and sonically majestic. Wagnerian! It shouldn't sound like a couple of guys in a studio, it should be massive and earth-shattering, crashing out of the speakers like a tsunami. This technique was exactly what Queen wanted and I think it works perfectly. This Wagnerian approach was used (and still IS used...more than you think) to less extreme effect on such album as Springsteen's Born To Run and Meat Loaf's Bat Out Of Hell. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 04.07.2010 21:33 |
Great post rhyeking, I learned a lot there. |
| Robbieboy 04.07.2010 22:35 |
I love the song and all the over-the-top harmonies in it. As someone noted, it's perfect for Queen II. It leads perfectly into SSOR. |
| Marina K. 05.07.2010 01:53 |
I love everything that Queen's made, including Funny How Love Is and Hot space album because all this has its special Queen charm and Queen quality. Honestly I'm tired of people here criticizing Queen music, writing that a certain song is bad or weak or a plagiarism, do you love Queen or not? If not why are you on Queenzone? I think if you love them you should take everything they have done, something less, something more, but TAKE it because THEY HAVE DONE IT! I'm not a musical critic and as far as I know Queenzone exists for Queen fans - not for musical critics. For me the most important thing - the emotions that a certain song gives, not its accordance to the musical criticism! And what about you? |
| philip storey 05.07.2010 03:08 |
I agree with Marina 100 per cent...I like it,if you don't sod you !! |
| Vali 05.07.2010 04:06 |
rhyeking wrote: More accurately, what Spector did was broadcast the playback of the music in realtime with the performance and recording, filling the studio with sound so that nothing was dominant and nothing was lost. The whole point was to assault the listener with a juggernaut of music. Spector hated the dainty, small production of the time and thought music should be grand and sonically majestic. Wagnerian! It shouldn't sound like a couple of guys in a studio, it should be massive and earth-shattering, crashing out of the speakers like a tsunami. This technique was exactly what Queen wanted and I think it works perfectly. This Wagnerian approach was used (and still IS used...more than you think) to less extreme effect on such album as Springsteen's Born To Run and Meat Loaf's Bat Out Of Hell. ==================================** Many tks for such precise info re the wall of sound technique, rhyeking. I've always heard about it, but never knew how it worked. Don't you think Springsteen has tried to recreate this sound in some tracks on his "Magic" and "Working On A Dream" recent albums? "Your Own Worst Enemy", "Girls In Their Summer Clothes", "This Life" come quickly to my mind btw, I love FHLI !! |
| Kacoblin 05.07.2010 08:23 |
In someways I feel rather guilty ever bringing up the post about would you change anything about any Queen album. Queen has been apart of my growing and prospering. They will forever stay in my memories, and be a flaming fire in my heart. Especially when I hear a song like Delilah and absolutley cherish every little lyric and the voice box Brian uses to make the cat meow noises. I love listening to man on the prowl and dancing around my bedroom, knowing not many people know or probably like this song. I don't know if it's Freddie's charming good looks or those glorious teeth I love so much {Not going to state the obvious about Freddie}, Brians electrifying and unique guitar sound or his amazing curls that stand with much grace upon his scalp, Rogers feminine yet macho automobile type drummer who can wear the hell out of sun glasses, John Deacons smile that makes me shudder to think {sorry what was that} or his underrated bass lines. I don't know which of any of these things make Queen so cosmical and whimsical to me. I just know i came to this site to express in more ways than I can actually display for you here now, my homage to the princes of the musical universe. So Goodnight and sweet dreams fellow Queen fans :] |
| FriedChicken 05.07.2010 11:57 |
"In a way, it's too *modern* and real-world" Too modern? The Beach Boys and Phil Spector have been doing stuff like that at least 10 years prior to Queen II |
| Leonardo Venegas 05.07.2010 14:19 |
FriedChicken wrote: "In a way, it's too *modern* and real-world" Too modern? The Beach Boys and Phil Spector have been doing stuff like that at least 10 years prior to Queen II Not talking about FHLI, that was a mention for The Loser In The End! |
| rhyeking 05.07.2010 14:40 |
Actually, that was my quote, that LITE sounded too modern. What I mean is the subject matter and approach does not evoke the mystery and fantasy-world that the other songs do easily. It's like watching Lord Of The Rings and suddenly the Fellowship stops at a gas station, before continuing to Rivendell. It's sort of out of place. I like "Loser In The End," but feel it would fit better on another album or as a B-side. Put another way, it;s like hanging a velvet Elvis painting or dogs player poker in a room full of Rembrandts. I'm being a bit tongue in cheek, but you see my point, I hope. |
| mike hunt 05.07.2010 23:47 |
Love the song.....I Love every second of side black and wouldn't change a single note. The best side of any queen album for me along with side B of A night at the opera. |
| matt z 06.07.2010 16:30 |
Tomorrow comes, tomorrow brings... tomorrow brings love in the shape of things.. Anytime....anywhere... if you've gotta make love, do it everywhere.. that's what love is ;) Great song, good suggested nods to Phil Spector.. (for some reason i never thought of that, despite the notion that it DOES sound WOS-like...) maybe a remix should do a full tribute to him and conclude with a gun shot ((rim shot)) Alright, enough of the joke in bad taste... ...i've always thought that Queen II was their most bombastic album...and therefore GREAT They kept touching on that sort of thing until it kinda tapered off around the JAZZ era...only to come back in glimpses (Princes of the Universe, Was it All Worth It, Chinese Torture, Made In Heaven) like the frenetic build of Fairy Feller... The dark broods of "March of the Black Queen".. Hell, even "Loser In the End" fits [though the lyric content doesn't], but yeah as an oddity... but then again so does "Seven Seas of Rhye" I just accept the bunch..(how "high and mighty" does that sound to scrutinize this incredibly talented band) lol... accept em as is pure feeerreeeeeeEEEakin... genius. |
| Winter Land Man 10.07.2010 00:44 |
panasonic wrote: For me the song is an obvious homage to the the Phil Spector style of production for which I loath. Basically it's about adding as many accoustic guitars, choirs and in Phil Spector's case orchestra's to a recording until its saturated. Then the next step is to apply a huge amount of echo to the top until it all turns to mud. What you end up with is just a huge amount of noise with no definition and usually no trebble. A great example of this is George Harrison's All Things Must Pass. The songs are great, the production to me is woefull. ================================= Phil Spector was blown out of the water by Brian Wilson's re-creation of the wall of sound. He got so jealous. He'd sneak into the studio while Brian was producing, and snicker "I can hear you!"... the dude was crazy. His wall of sound was simple. Brian totally over-did it. In fact, Phil Spector was so jealous of Brian's productions and song writing, he refused to let The Ronettes use Brian as a song writer. Thus is why 'Don't Worry Baby' wasn't released by The Ronettes. Brian was so delighted when Ronnie did the song later on though. He loved it! I think Freddie, personally, knew more about The Beach Boys than about Phil Spector. I don't recall him mentioning Spector at all. |
| rhyeking 10.07.2010 01:15 |
It was producer Robin Cable who created the Wall Of Sound for Queen. While recording the fisrt album, Cable asked Freddie to record vocals and piano for his (Cable's) version of "I Can Hear Music" and "Goin' Back." Freddie brought in Brian and Roger and thsong were recorded. They became the Larry Lurex single we know and love! When recording Queen II, they obviously wanted to recreate that Wall Of Sound and had Cable produce the track. They credit him accordingly on the album. |