| Sebastian 13.07.2010 03:18 |
Hello everybody. I'm planing a new section (or at least a 2-page PDF article) on those things that many people mistakenly believe regarding the band but aren't true. If anybody can give me a hand in completing the list, I'll appreciate it. So far I've got: * Bechstein piano at Trident: Originated when the piano in question (used for 'Hey Jude' and then from early 80's onwards but not during early 70's and not when Queen were there) was auctioned ca nine years ago. * Smile recording at De Lane Lea: They actually recorded at Kingsway Recorders, which is where Fritz Fryer worked. Somebody along the line must have (reasonably and understandably) assumed it was De Lane Lea because they were located at 129 Kingsway (which is, however, not the same thing) and because the name may have rung a bell. Maybe that's why (reportedly) even Tim (mistakenly) thought it was DLL. * Bicycle Race inspired by the tour de France stopping in Nice: First of all, Super Bear Studios were not in Nice, but in the countryside in the Nice region (not the same thing). Second of all, the tour de France, despite its name, didn't have (that year at least) any stop even close to Super Bear Studios. It did, however, stop in Montreux. So there you have it: tour de France in Switzerland. * Fender Rhodes used in You're My Best Friend: Even Dr May (mistakenly) said so. It partly comes from Fender Rhodes being used as generonym for e-pianos in general, even though many of them (including the Wurlizer EP200 used to record YMBF) are from different makes and models. * Loads of songwriting things, including WIAWI being Brian's just because it's got distorted guitars, DTSH being John's just because he apparently 'had' to have written at least one song in the album, RMF being Rog's just because he commented he'd done more percussion but they made him take it out (which actually suggests it was NOT his as he didn't make the decisions), Bijou's guitar bits being composed by Brian (actually, it was Fred who wrote most of them, as Dr May himself admitted), Innuendo and UP being by Rog, etc. * Sitar being used on White Queen and Jealousy: it's actually an old acoustic guitar with some bridge modifications. * Guitar solo on I Want to Break Free (studio version). It's actually a Jupiter 8 synthesiser. * Ukelele-banjo being used on Good Company: it was actually a baritone ukelele, different to the uke-banjo Bri played on Leroy Brown. * Acoustic nylon-strung guitar being used on Innuendo: it's a Gibson Chet Atkins Classical Electric, which looks and sounds acoustic but is... well, 'classical electric.' * Dr May playing bass on several Innuendo things: while John was less involved than the rest (especially on the creative department), he did play bass on all songs except Bijou, which of course has no bass at all. * Hot Space being largely a John thing: First of all, he contributed less songs than any of the others; second of all, he admittedly hated the album. The HS thing was probably largely inspired by AOBTD, but it doesn't mean it was a Jeddie vs Maylor thing: who wrote Action? Dancer? The four of them were equally guilty of such an album (perhaps Fred more than the others). * Several other equipment things: Fred played an Ovation on CLTCL live, but in the studio he used a Martin; same for Brian (Telecaster vs Broadcaster [or is it?]). * No HS no Thriller. Where do I begin? * YDFM coming from HS. Especially since the GHIII booklet said it 'hark[ed] back' to that era. So I'm assuming Freddie wrote Seaside Rendezvous two decades before he was born just because it harks back to the 1920's? * New Dark Ages being tried out for Innuendo: According to Brian, it wasn't. Unless of course it's another slip in his memory... but for the moment he's the most reliable source (unless a demo surfaces, for instance). Another option could be that Rog tried out for Innuendo with Fred and John. * Fred thinking TMLWKY wasn't good enough: As far as the producer has said, Fred loved it. The reason why it wasn't released in The Miracle had nothing to do with its quality - it was a matter of getting permissions to publish a song co-written by Frank and Liz... legal matters as per usual. * The Hitman being originally written for Back to the Light: Headlong and ICLWY were, but this one wasn't. In fact, Hitman was originally written by Freddie, not Brian. * Rog co-writing STL (apparently something was lost in translation for the Spanish version of As It Began, leading many people in the huge Spanish-speaking Queensphere to believe so). * Prophet's Song originally written for Queen II. It wasn't, AFAIK and as far as the doctor's implied. * Rog being mostly replaced by synth drums: first of all, synth-drums are not the same as computer-generated drums. Second of all, both computer drums and synth drums were used on roughly 15% of Queen released tracks, or less. * Rog locking himself in a cupboard (or something like that). The source for such rumour was Roy... the epitome of exaggeration. And of course: * 180 voices in Bo Rhap. Any contribution is appreciated. |
| YourValentine 13.07.2010 07:47 |
I am not sure about the Deacon/ Innuendo part. Where does your information come from? Here is one wrong assumption: The spoken words on WWRY BBC sessions are NOT from Hermann Hesse's novel Siddharta. I had my doubts about that from the beginning and I compared each and every line of the novel with those words - they are not from Siddharta. |
| Holly2003 13.07.2010 08:35 |
Bohemian Rhapsody was not the first promotional video. |
| rhyeking 13.07.2010 09:07 |
Re: BoRhap Video I'm not sure where the original attributtion of "first promo video" came from, but I always understood the meaning to be that it was one of the first of what we would understand as a 'modern video,' as in it wasn't just film of the band performing, it featured specific footage designed to be more abstract and artistic. Certainly bands like The Beatles were issuing promo films years before, but they weren't big production numbers (despite the relatively cheap cost of BR) the way Queen did it. By the '80s, almost all music videos were big productions, with stories and acting and costumes. That's what "Radio Ga Ga" (the song) railed against. Another aspect of the modern music video is sheer memorability. How many videos can you remember WITHOUT really remembering the song itself. BoRhap had the visual gimmick of the four faces (the Queen II album cover imagery). "Weapon Of Choice" has Christopher Walken dancing, but I defy any of you to tell you you could sing along to it. "Sabotage" has the Beastie Boys performing as if it's the title song to a '70s cop drama, but I couldn't sing you two words if my life depended on it. Either way, it wasn't the "first video," but it certainly helped solidify the modern format. |
| rhyeking 13.07.2010 10:52 |
Re: Songwriting credits It's never really bothered me not knowing who wrote a particular song. Is it useful information? Maybe. Songwriting, from everything I've read, is a fluid term and can apply a few different ways: Person X sits down and writes a song, therefore he is the songwriter. Person X & Y sit down and write a song together, therefore they are the songwriters. Person X has an idea for a song and the band flesh it out. This is where things get murky. Is Person X the songwriter? Or does the band get equal credit? The band jam on something, inspiring Person X to put some lyrics down, does some editting and produces a song with additional work by the band. Same question, who is the songwriter? It's easy when Brian admits he wrote "I Want It All" and Roger admits he wrote "These Are The Days Of Our Lives," but in many of the same statements, they say that every song had a fair amount of input from the rest of the band, with a few exceptions like BoRhap, which was obviously a uniquely Freddie project. In short (too late, I know, haha), some songs are primarily individual works and some are collaborative. I think it's presumptuous to assume EVERY Queen-credited song has a single writer. Below are my feelings/assumptions/knowledge as to who wrote what where the song is credited to the whole band. Stone Cold Crazy = Queen Under Pressure = Queen & David Bowie Soul Brother = Queen One Vision = Queen Blurred Vision = Queen Party = FM Khashoggi's Ship = FM The Miracle = FM I Want It All = BM The Invisible Man = RT Breakthru = RT+FM Rain Must Fall =FM (or JD?) Scandal = BM My Baby Does Me = FM Was It All Worth It = Queen Hang On In There = Queen Chinese Torture = BM Stealin' = Queen (or FM + RT) Hijack My Heart = RT My Life Has Been Saved = FM or JD Dog With A Bone = RT Innuendo = Queen I'm Going Slightly Mad = FM Headlong = BM I Can't Live With You = BM Don't Try So Hard = FM or JD (or FM + JD) Ride The Wild Wind = RT All God's People = FM + MM These Are The Days Of Our Lives = RT Delilah = FM The Hitman = FM Bijou = FM + BM The Show Must Go On = BM (or BM + FM, or Queen) Lost Opportunity = BM It's a Beautiful Day = FM Let Me Live = Queen Mother Love = FM + BM You Don't Fool Me = DR A Winter's Tale = FM Track 13 = DR No One But You = BM Songs like One Vision we've seen the whole band working on. Hang On In There seems to have started as a band jam (Fiddley Jam), WIAWI sounds like a band collaboration, even if one person penned most or all of the lyrics...same with TSMGO, even though I've seen footage of Brian working out the synth riff and I think he's talked about co-writing with Freddie. LML, in it's present form, sounds like it had multiple songwriters, so I give it a Queen credit. I DID read an interview with David Richard where he talked about creating YDFM and Track 13 more or less out of nothing. Brian also said, for YDFM, that before DR sat down with it, "there was no song." He didn't write the lyrics, but he created the song out of bits and pieces. I may be wrong...I'm *probably* wrong...on some of my guesses, so feel free to discuss. |
| Sebastian 13.07.2010 11:23 |
A million thanks Holly - I'd left out the second most obvious! > but I always understood the meaning to be that it was one of the first of what we would understand as a 'modern video,' Yes but that's largely arbitrary. It's the same when people claim Hendrix invented or was the first to use feedback: when they're shown a pre-Hendrix usage of it, they make up excuses such as 'yes but that's only a couple seconds.' It's like saying the first World Cup was in 1970 because it was the first one with yellow/red cards, or because it had (relatively) global television coverage... The fact of the matter is, Bo Rhap's not even Queen's first video. > Either way, it wasn't the "first video," but it certainly helped solidify the modern format. I think that point is not debated. But again, not the same thing. All in all, most of those 'legends' (or whatever we may call them) have some truth in them... for instance, Brian DID co-write Bijou, but he was more involved in composing the vocal parts, while Fred wrote the guitar parts (that Brian played magnificently). > It's never really bothered me not knowing who wrote a particular song. And you're entitled not to be bothered by it. People are different. You're right that it's not hard science and it's got some thin borderlines sometimes. The example I like to use is Knocking on Heaven's Door: when GnR covered it, they created new guitar parts, a new bass-line, new drum bits, new piano lines, even made modifications to the melody and added previously unexisting harmonies, etc.... but the song is still Bob Dylan's - they arranged a new version, but they didn't write or co-write the piece. According to that, if Brian wrote the Days of Our Lives solo, he's still not a co-writer of the song, as the solo's based on the chord progression already created by Roger. Rog built the house, Brian helped painting it: not the same thing. A counterexample would be those where one person writes the lyrics and another composes the music, or songs coming from different sections by different people (e.g. Blink-182's Feeling This). > I think it's presumptuous to assume EVERY Queen-credited song has a single writer. Not all, but most. Exceptions are the cases mentioned above: lyrics + music written separately, or song coming from different sections put together. > Stone Cold Crazy = Queen Minus John, as they already played it long before he joined. > Under Pressure = Queen & David Bowie Minus John (he didn't even write the bass-line), minus Brian (he did collaborate on the arrangement), minus Roger (he loved the song and all, but he was barely involved in inventing it). Music's basically Freddie's and lyrics + melody are Fred + David. > Soul Brother = Queen Actually, it's Freddie, both lyrics and music. > One Vision = Queen Minus John (he admitted so). IMO, Fred's involvement was more of a copy-writer (lyric-wise) and an arranger/producer (music-wise). But then again, it's subjective. > Party = FM Musically, yes. But lyrics were written by the three of them: Brian, John and Fred. > Khashoggi's Ship = FM Musically, yes. But lyrics were a four-way split. > The Miracle = FM Musically, yes. But lyrics were a four-way split. > Rain Must Fall =FM (or JD?) Actually it's 'and' rather than 'or'. John composed the music, Freddie wrote the lyrics. > Scandal = BM Yes, at least chiefly. But I've always wondered about something: on GVHII the rule was reversed for IWIA and not for this one. Suspicious... > My Baby Does Me = FM And JD. > Was It All Worth It = Queen Lyrically, yes. Musically, it's Freddie's. > Hang On In There = Queen AFAIK, that one's Fred's too. > My Life Has Been Saved = FM or JD Just JD. Fred loved it and sang on it, but it was already written by the time he heard it. > Innuendo = Queen Minus John (he wasn't even present for most of the sessions), minus Brian (he did work on the arrangement [painted the house but didn't co-build it]). Lyrics were started off by Fred and finished by Roger, music is Freddie's. > Don't Try So Hard = FM or JD (or FM + JD) No JD involvement at all. > The Hitman = FM Yes but not exclusively. That one's probably the most debatable. > The Show Must Go On = BM (or BM + FM, or Queen) That's the one which is the closest to being a Queen creation: the sequence (which represents ca 80% of the functional harmony) was by John and Roger, lyrics were started off by Freddie and Brian and finished by the latter, melody was by Brian. So it's a four-way split but not 25-25-25-25. > Mother Love = FM + BM Yes but that one was never credited to Queen in the first place. > You Don't Fool Me = DR Another grey area. > No One But You = BM Yes but that one was never credited to Queen in the first place. > Songs like One Vision we've seen the whole band working on. Minus John. > WIAWI sounds like a band collaboration, even if one person penned most or all of the lyrics... Actually, it's the other way around: lyrics are by the four of them, music's by one. |
| Benn 13.07.2010 11:29 |
>>* Bicycle Race inspired by the tour de France stopping in Nice As I understood it, the song was simply inspired by the Tour De France. Never read anywhere that Nice had anything to do with it. |
| Sebastian 13.07.2010 12:52 |
I think (but I may be wrong) 'As It Began' states it was in Nice. Queenpedia (as of 17:51 GMT today) also has that. I think even my own website makes the same mistake. |
| poppo 13.07.2010 13:05 |
I always thought that Bo Rhap was the first ever promo distributed on the video format (vhs?), whereas earlier music promos were distributed on film. |
| The Real Wizard 13.07.2010 13:13 |
Sebastian wrote: > Stone Cold Crazy = Queen "Minus John, as they already played it long before he joined." Yes, but we have never heard the early version to compare. Is it not possible that John somehow contributed to the final version after he joined the band? > Under Pressure = Queen & David Bowie "Minus John (he didn't even write the bass-line), minus Brian (he did collaborate on the arrangement), minus Roger (he loved the song and all, but he was barely involved in inventing it). Music's basically Freddie's and lyrics + melody are Fred + David." > Soul Brother = Queen "Actually, it's Freddie, both lyrics and music." > Don't Try So Hard = FM or JD (or FM + JD) "No JD involvement at all." What's your source of information for these three songs? |
| Sebastian 13.07.2010 13:40 |
UP: John (on a French mag in '84 and a Japanese one, twice [IIRC] in '82) + Phoebe's book + Freddie (1983, I think it's on YT - that one's not very clear but he does imply the idea was his and David's) + David (his website). DTSH: David Richards (2001, Queen File) + Brian May (2006, Q Mag). In fact the song was originally Fred's and then Fred and Brian worked on the music together, and the lyrics are Fred's. No Roger, no John. Just like Bijou or Is This the World. Soul Brother: Brian's Soapbox (don't remember the date). SCC: According to Barry Mitchell, the song's the same as when he was in the band. Of course, we could argue that all those things are witnesses' recollections, which could be wrong (as when ... said ...) but, at the moment, they're the most reliable info about those four tracks. Of course, if an early SCC live recording surfaced and it was radically different (e.g. the rumoured slow version, which I personally don't think ever existed), it could be thought that they re-wrote it (which still doesn't mean John was involved - he could've been AWOL for all we know), I'd be happy to stand corrected. |
| Holly2003 13.07.2010 13:54 |
If 'Feel Like' is a demo that was used as the template for Under Pressure, then surely whoever 'wrote' that must also be co-credited with UP. My guess is that the structure of 'Feel Like' is Brian's, as the chord progression is a bit of a trademark of his. |
| Sebastian 13.07.2010 14:06 |
Holly: Yes. If the doctor wrote FL and if FL is an UP demo, then he'd be a co-writer too. But in that case, UP would still be Rog-free (he used to be believed its main creator). The chord progression itself is so simple that any of the four could've written it, although I do agree it sounds a bit more Brian-esque (can't think of a cross-reference right now but I'll look into it). Bob: Do you happen to remember the (approximate) date? |
| The Real Wizard 13.07.2010 14:06 |
Sebastian wrote: "Of course, we could argue that all those things are witnesses' recollections, which could be wrong (as when ... said ...) but, at the moment, they're the most reliable info about those four tracks." Fair enough. Thanks for the info. In fact, I do remember the Soapbox post about Soul Brother now that you mention it. |
| tcc 13.07.2010 23:13 |
See comments for Soul Brother in here: link |
| The Real Wizard 13.07.2010 23:15 |
Sebastian wrote: "Bob: Do you happen to remember the (approximate) date?" According to the link TCC just posted, it's from 2003. Thanks for that ! |
| john bodega 14.07.2010 04:05 |
Bo Rhap was definitely not the first music video as we understand it. Videos that were not wholly performance-based in nature were being done ten years previously. What the Bohemian Rhapsody video WAS, was the one that sticks in people's minds as "the first". VCRs showing up when they did, and the BR video being as iconic as it was, it's only natural that people think of it as somewhat revolutionary, and it's very possible that the video was the first one to play such a big role in the success of a song. But in terms of it being the first video made to be played on television so that the band didn't have to put in personal appearances? Pure bunkum. And it certainly isn't the first non-performance or 'arty' one to be made, either. |
| Rick 14.07.2010 04:36 |
Why was John barely involved in the Innuendo project? Had it something to do with Freddie's illness? |
| jeffuk49 14.07.2010 09:11 |
That is only known by JD, however he spent most of the Innuendo sessions on holiday in the South of France with his holiday and due to this the original release date was pushed back to 91 instead of intime for the christmas rush in 90, I'm not sure if it was due to Freddie's Illness as the sessions in 91 he was involved along with video shoots etc, only he can answer that |
| Benn 14.07.2010 10:31 |
The Bo Rhap video has been a bone of contention for many years in terms of it being the first video. Clearly, promotional clips had been used by many bands for many years up until that point. These were used where TV shows were unable to secure the band for a lip-sinc or live performance of the song. What Bo Rhap was the first to do was to be the ONLY tool with which the band would promote that particular song. They were unable to lip sync or play it live as a whole piece and, in order to promote it properly, the band had to film something specifically to replace them. The Bo Rhap film was the first film to be used soley in place of the band themselves. |
| Sebastian 14.07.2010 12:14 |
> What Bo Rhap was the first to do was to be the ONLY tool with which the band would promote that particular song Errr, no, it wasn't the only tool. Ever heard of Kenny Everett, the tour, the album launch party? All those things were intended to make the public buy the single (and album), which is what 'promotion' (in the marketing sense) is about. |
| Darren1977 14.07.2010 14:40 |
Brilliant topic guys. And great, no arguing! Very informative. Keep it up. |
| Holly2003 14.07.2010 14:56 |
Elements of the Bo Rap video were based on a promotional video for a Beach Boys song (perhaps Good Vibrations, but I can't find the particular clip online -- I saw it at Uni a long time ago). However, becasue it was so memorable it seemed like it was first (at least in the UK -- no idea about the USA and rest of the world). The Rolling Stones, Beatles, Who, Doors etc were doing promo films long before Queen. |
| friedrich 14.07.2010 16:07 |
Sebastian wrote: > What Bo Rhap was the first to do was to be the ONLY tool with which the band would promote that particular song Errr, no, it wasn't the only tool. Ever heard of Kenny Everett, the tour, the album launch party? All those things were intended to make the public buy the single (and album), which is what 'promotion' (in the marketing sense) is about. think you are right. both of you. kenny everett wasn't intended in their marketing strategy, right?. yes, a tour promotes an album and each single. it was an album launch party .... maybe more like this ... the video was the first projected extra tool to promote and support a special song. the first intended use of this medium in music business ... great topic. thanks sebastian. f. |
| rhyeking 14.07.2010 16:37 |
Okay, hopefully we can agree to put this to rest, regarding BoRhap. Can we agree on the following? Fact: The Beatles, The Doors, The Who, Rush, Bowie and many, many others, including Queen themselves (KYA & Liar) were all creating promotional films BEFORE "Bohemian Rhapsody." Some were widely seen. Some weren't. Fact: BoRhap's video was quite memorable and had few equals before or during the '70s. Fact: The video for BoRhap DID do a great deal for promoting the single, as did Kenny Everett and word of mouth. Fact: It helped advance the concept of promotional films and videos as greater tool for marketing and promotion. Fact: It was not the "first" in any strict sense of the word. Thoughts? |
| Sebastian 14.07.2010 22:11 |
I agree. |
| Bo Rhap 15.07.2010 02:50 |
How many times was the video for BR recorded because i seem to remember that the"TOTP"video was different to the one on Greatest Video Hits 1 Different camera angles etc |
| Benn Kempster 15.07.2010 05:10 |
>>Errr, no, it wasn't the only tool. Ever heard of Kenny Everett, Yes, but that was the song being played and not an in-person performance by the band as specific promotion for the single. Add in that Kenney played "parts" of the song because the BBC were concerned about the length of the single's playing time. >>the tour, The song was not played in it's entirety and in the format of the single until they started using the backing tape so we can rule that out. >>the album launch party? Nothing to do with the single - specific promotion for the ANATO album and no performance by the band to promote it at the party either. >>All those things were intended to make the public buy the single (and album), which is what 'promotion' (in the marketing sense) is about. The film was made so that the band did not have to interrupt their tour schedule to then think about how to lip-sync to the track on TV shows like TOTP etc. The film was made so that ANY TV station could request a copy and the band were then happy that they and their song were being peoperly represented in performance. Let's go for: Bo Rhap was FIRST promotional film to be the only performance tool a band used in order to perform a song, in it's entirety, other than through having to compromise through the single being played to stills or being edited down to suit time schedules? |
| Planetgurl 15.07.2010 06:55 |
Benn Kempster wrote: >>Errr, no, it wasn't the only tool. Ever heard of Kenny Everett, Yes, but that was the song being played and not an in-person performance by the band as specific promotion for the single. Add in that Kenney played "parts" of the song because the BBC were concerned about the length of the single's playing time. Kenny Everett had a lunchtime show at that time over the weekend on Capital Radio. He initially played excerpts over that weekend but by the end of it had played the single something like 14 times, as I recall. |
| Darren1977 15.07.2010 07:20 |
Used to have a copy of part of that show on audio tape, it was hilarious and it think that freddie made an appearance on there but don't know if he read out the weather forecast as was mentioned before some time ago. It was a very bad copy of another tape and was muffled, but Kenny was brilliant. Must check the attic for it |
| Planetgurl 15.07.2010 07:27 |
Holly2003 wrote: Elements of the Bo Rap video were based on a promotional video for a Beach Boys song (perhaps Good Vibrations, but I can't find the particular clip online -- I saw it at Uni a long time ago). However, becasue it was so memorable it seemed like it was first (at least in the UK -- no idea about the USA and rest of the world). The Rolling Stones, Beatles, Who, Doors etc were doing promo films long before Queen. Holly you might be referring to a particular quality of both promos, in that they used a split lens to film parts of BoRhap. The Beach Boys film might have had a similar visual effect. These split lenses were used a lot in the '60's, to achieve a 'psychedelic effect'. The cameramen who shot Bo Rhap were obviously not that young and thought of using that effect to make BoRhap stand out and to visually portray the choral parts (many voices). Promo films of artists go back to the 1930's - I saw a retrospective of these promotional films at the BFI in London years ago (early 1980's): Bessie Smith made the earliest one and it would have been screened at cinemas at that time. I think the band regarded the vid, in the same way they did the single: as a marketable product in itself. The way they interpreted the song visually went in yet another direction on the tour in 1975. They utilised 2 sections of the song visually to literally explode onto the stage. I saw them do this - and Fred was behind all this audio-visual sync -planning of the stage show. Yes they were on tour and couldn't make TOTP to perform it but did TOTP have a policy then of making bands re-record the song if they were going on there to perform it? (eg. Good Old Fashioned Loverboy performance on TOTP was re-recorded). Over the history of TOTP they went in and out of this policy over many years. I can't remember if this was another reason why they couldn't do the show: they couldn't re-record the track: it was just too complex. |
| Sebastian 15.07.2010 07:39 |
I very much doubt Kenny played it 14 times. I mean, the source is Roy Exaggeration Baker, the same bloke who'd claim Spain won the World Cup 7-0 or that there were two hundred yellow cards on the final. |
| YourValentine 15.07.2010 08:09 |
There were many promotional music videos before BoRhap which were not just a performance film. What made the BoRhap video so outstanding and "new" was the reception of the video. At the time people talked just as much about the video as about the song. It was exactly like Michael Appleton said in the Magic Years: people asked each other "have you seen the video?" just as much as they asked: "have you heard the song?" - maybe even more. The reason why people talked so much about the video: it was just unbelievably good at the time. The images worked so well with the music and made a very strong impression (unlike "Penny Lane", for example). It was the most influential music video until "Thriller" was released. In retrospect you can therefore say that BoRhap started the important role of the music video. While the success of the "BoRhap" video was a lucky strike and could not be foreseen, "Thriller" was a carefully planned enterprise and the success could be expected. I believe it is fair to say that "BoRhap" started a new era of pop videos. |
| tcc 15.07.2010 08:48 |
I think it is the medium of recording that made Bo Rhap the first in something - before Bo Rhap, the music performance of the other bands were recorded on film whereas Bo Rhap was recorded on a video tape (presumably VHS tape) which could be duplicated easily. Hence the term music videos. |
| Planetgurl 16.07.2010 06:26 |
Sebastian wrote: I very much doubt Kenny played it 14 times. I mean, the source is Roy Exaggeration Baker, the same bloke who'd claim Spain won the World Cup 7-0 or that there were two hundred yellow cards on the final. Unfortunately I missed that particular weekend - I regularly listened to Kenny Everett's weekend show on Capital: it was hilarious. You'd have to get someone who remembered the shows over that weekend - the '14 times' bit I remember from being in the press c. 1975 with ANATO's release. Don't know if it was from RTB - but it WAS the sort of thing that KE would do... This is the man who got fired by the BBC twice I think... As he'd got the pre-press copy he probably was completely over the top about playing it so many times that weekend. |
| Planetgurl 16.07.2010 06:31 |
Darren1977 wrote: Used to have a copy of part of that show on audio tape, it was hilarious and it think that freddie made an appearance on there but don't know if he read out the weather forecast as was mentioned before some time ago. It was a very bad copy of another tape and was muffled, but Kenny was brilliant. Must check the attic for it Yes, I listened and taped it at the time - had the reel to reel for years... Yes he did - he read it as "clean spells" instead of clear spells but I want to know when Fred appeared on KE's show the FIRST time? Because this was the second time he appeared - I missed the first time but someone at school told me about it the following day or so. He said that Fred had been on the show - it was the time of the release of ANATO.... Anyone know? |
| YourValentine 11.08.2010 05:18 |
Contrary to Queen legends BoRhap was not the first single that broke the "3-minutes-is-the-most-played-on-radio" rule. The first single that was almost 7 minutes long was "Hey Jude" from the Beatles. According to Beatles documentaries it was the best selling Beatles single ever - and it was years before BoRhap. |
| rhyeking 11.08.2010 14:19 |
There were plenty of singles longer than three minutes before BoRhap, but record companies really pressured bands to write shorter songs or edit long ones down. They had a low opinion of listeners' attention spans and thought anything which ran long would cause people to change the channel. It was stupid, but it was very true. Billy Joel's song "The Entertainer" reflects that this sort of thing was prevailant at least up to 1975, the year his (and Rhapsody) came out: "I am the entertainer, I come to do my show. You've heard my latest record, It's been on the radio. Ah, it took me years to write it, They were the best years of my life. It was a beautiful song. But it ran too long. If you're gonna have a hit, You gotta make it fit-- So they cut it down to 3:05." Supposedly, this is refering to the radio edit of Piano Man, which was almost 6 minutes long on the album. |
| GratefulFan 11.08.2010 22:26 |
rhyeking wrote: There were plenty of singles longer than three minutes before BoRhap, but record companies really pressured bands to write shorter songs or edit long ones down. They had a low opinion of listeners' attention spans and thought anything which ran long would cause people to change the channel. It was stupid, but it was very true. Billy Joel's song "The Entertainer" reflects that this sort of thing was prevailant at least up to 1975, the year his (and Rhapsody) came out: "I am the entertainer, I come to do my show. You've heard my latest record, It's been on the radio. Ah, it took me years to write it, They were the best years of my life. It was a beautiful song. But it ran too long. If you're gonna have a hit, You gotta make it fit-- So they cut it down to 3:05." Supposedly, this is refering to the radio edit of Piano Man, which was almost 6 minutes long on the album. ========================================== If I'm parking my car somewhere where I plan to be back out within an hour or few, I usually let the satellite radio in my car run. Because it has a large listening buffer that allows you to pause, rewind etc., it means that I end up with a big selection of songs to come back to and pick and choose from on my drive home or wherever. While I've never seen actual track length trends over time, I can say anecdotally that when the channel I leave my radio on is the 70's feed there is a noticeably greater number of songs for the same buffered time period than when I choose other stations. So it's clear that shorter track lengths were likely definitely a 'thing' in that time period. |
| YourValentine 12.08.2010 05:43 |
Yes, you are both correct. I was only pointing out that it was the Beatles who broke the "3 minutes single rule", not Queen's BoRhap. Like so often the Beatles had already pioneered what later bands wanted to claim as their own true novelty - like for example stadium rock :-) |
| rhyeking 23.08.2010 12:44 |
On the subject of widespread erroneous information: Tim Staffell did not make the alien model used on the Fun In Space album cover. I'm not sure where this idea came from, but it is most easily disproved by the actual liner notes which credit Alistair Bowtell. Here is the obituary for Mr. Bowtell: link |
| mooghead 23.08.2010 16:31 |
"I'm planing a new section (or at least a 2-page PDF article)" PLEASE dont..... |
| Sebastian 23.08.2010 21:06 |
I'm sorry not to please you (actually, I'm not, I couldn't care less). If you don't want to read the upcoming section (or PDF article), then I suggest you try something: DON'T. |
| Yara 24.08.2010 09:36 |
I read somewhere or heard someone say that Killer Queen's solo was composed by Brian. It is, for me, the most thrilling moment of the song, especially when John steps in with the bass and the song gets quite groovy. Is it true that he composed the solo? Such a beautiful piece of music! |
| Gregsynth 26.08.2010 01:51 |
I recently found out, that Freddie doesn't sing the C5 in the Glasgow 1979 version of Bo Rhap. It took a friend with some VERY good sound equipment, and some VERY good ears to detect it. Now I have to beat myself! |
| QueenFan76 26.08.2010 09:18 |
> Soul Brother = Queen Actually, it's Freddie, both lyrics and music. Yeah, but it was credited as such because they used song titles by all of them. (He will rock you, He's my best frriend, he's my champion.) Though I don't know that he mentions a Roger song except Under Pressure which as stated before the other 3 didn't even write it, David and Freddie did, then again wouldn't soul brother then carry the Queen/Bowie writing credit then? |
| rhyeking 26.08.2010 11:42 |
Re: Soul Brother Maybe they were feeling democratic and said, "Screw it, we'll credit the whole band, it's just a b-side." Or maybe Freddie was the primary composer, but they all added bits of lyrics and or ideas. At the time, the only other songs credited to Queen as a whole were "Stone Cold Crazy" and "Under Pressure" with Bowie. Brian has said repeatedly that the story behind UP is long and complicated, so I'm of the opinion that our best theories are probably not complete. The missing details there probably account for the five of them getting credit, in what probably a convulted, collaborative way. For a band that previously guarded individual songwriting credits up to that point, it must have taken something extraordinary to warrant equal billing. "Stone Cold Crazy"? We all now the story of how no one could remember who wrote what and that it originated as a Wreckage song. For the same reasons as before, the band must have had a good reason to forgo an individual credit and thus credit all four. I can only imagine the same thing is true about "Soul Brother" They were vocal about adopting the joint credit on the later albums, but the circumstances in 1981 were quite different. Someone should ask Brian. |
| QueenFan76 26.08.2010 12:49 |
Yeah but I don't like the reasoning for Stone Cold Crazy. Only Freddie was in Wreckage. I could understand crediting it to Wreckage but why Queen. I think they all wrote something, that or 3 of them did (remember, John's Misfire was his first so maybe he was the one who DIDN'T write on it) and they wanted to give a band credit as opposed to (Mercury, May Taylor) |
| rhyeking 26.08.2010 14:31 |
"Stone Cold Crazy" BEGAN (reportedly) as a Wreckage song. There is no record of a specific song by Wreckage with that name, so we're left to assume it was altered significantly when Queen worked it. John may or may not have had a lot to do with that, it's hard to say, since he was the last to join (but he also might have had a fair bit to say, either musically or lyrically). SCC is also one of Queen's earliest songs, several of which came from earlier bands. Polar Bear, Silver Salmon, Doing All Right, See What A Fool I've Been, Blag (via the Brighton Rock Solo) = Smile Hangman, Lover (re-written as Liar) and the unnamed SCC-track = Ibex & Wreckage I don't have time to go into specific detail about these songs' journey into Queen-dom, but you see my point, I hope, that SCC is far from unique as a song that partially predates Queen. As for "Misfire," it's the first song John has a solo credit on, but that only means it's the first song he wrote, by himself, for Queen, which made it onto a Queen album. It doesn't preclude any lyric/music writing he may have done before that. |
| Sebastian 19.09.2010 18:38 |
Some more thoughts on the matter(s): * Brian, apparently, used non-RS electric guitars more often than I'd thought and claimed earlier on. While his main instrument was of course the one he and his dad had made in his teenage years, the exceptions were far more frequent than just CLTCL, LA and ML. For instance, there's the thing about the Flash reprise (after The Hero finishes), the rhythm on TIU and HTF and the twelve-string on UP (unless of course it's recorded by someone else [remember that all four Queen members and David Bowie were good enough on guitar to play that bit]). An NME interview from 27th September 1975 (almost 35 years ago, BTW) implies Brian was meant to use a new guitar especially made (assumedly the Birch replica) on 'The Prophet's Song,' but it's currently unknown (by me) whether he finally did it or not. * Due to Freddie's tongue-in-cheek 'I can only play three chords' comments he introduced CLTCL on stage with, people both inside and outside the Queensphere tend to think of him as a rather clumsy guitar player. The truth is, while he was certainly not even close to Brian's skills and he's way more famous as singer for a reason, he was quite a decent player and, apparently, played it on 'some songs', which implies CLTCL was not the only recording with his guitar playing. * Largely through my own fault, loads of people started to believe loads of drums and basses were computer-, synth- or in general terms machine-generated on the records, rendering Roger and John virtually redundant for large portions of the albums (save for Rog's backing vocals). While it is true that there were occasions of that (e.g. Body Language has no John at all), both Roger and John played on the vast majority of recording and were as featured as Freddie and Brian. Over 85% of drums + bass found on Queen records are human and played by them. * Broke in 1975? I don't think so... Roger drove an Alfa Romeo for crying out loud! Fred owned a wonderful Japanese lacquered piano, each band member earnt way more than what the average salary was in England at the time. Granted, their record company executives were taking a much larger slice than they should, and Queen weren't still multi-millionaire as they'd become some months later, but they weren't broke at all. * Fred in his death bed asking the others to write music for him? Again, quite unlikely considering for both The Miracle and Innuendo he was the dominant songwriter, and for the three post-Innuendo tunes, he wrote one and co-wrote the other two (so, again, he was the dominant songwriter). * By the time 'Hot Space' was released, most of the 'Thriller' songs had already been written and demo'd. So, again, to say that without one we wouldn't have had the other ranges from ridiculous to plain stupid. |
| rhyeking 19.09.2010 19:07 |
If Stephen King can learn to play rhythm guitar well enough to want to do it on stage with Rock Bottom Remainder, I have no trouble believing a musician of Freddie's calibre could learn to play without making a fool of himself. Given what actually appears new on Made In Heaven (Let Me Live, Mother Love, You Don't Fool Me, A Winter's Tale) it's not hard to figure out who wrote how much of the material they recorded in those last days. Freddie may have genuinely made the request to "write me anything to sing," but given the time he had left, he didn't get a lot of it down, so maybe the band decided to do *his* song first, so whatever they ended up with would include Freddie's last written AND recorded works. I'm curious as to when the older songs were decided on? Did Freddie have a say in suggesting which of his Mr. Bad Guy songs were to be used? Did the band focus solely on recording right up to when Freddie could no longer physically do it, not giving a thought to how to finish the material once he was gone? I wonder if they thought at one point Brian and Roger could record a few songs each on lead vocals and that the shape of the 'last Queen album' could have been very different. Brian and Roger WERE working on solo projects at the time of Freddie's death, so I don't think it's a wild supposition. They might have changed their minds after the hiatus between 1992 (Tribute Concert) and 1994 (returning to the studio) and decided then to use older songs to finish the album off. |
| tcc 19.09.2010 19:25 |
Sebastian wrote: * Broke in 1975? I don't think so... Roger drove an Alfa Romeo for crying out loud! Fred owned a wonderful Japanese lacquered piano, each band member earnt way more than what the average salary was in England at the time. Granted, their record company executives were taking a much larger slice than they should, and Queen weren't still multi-millionaire as they'd become some months later, but they weren't broke at all. I think you may have forgotten that there is such a thing as a loan from the bank (instalment credit). :-) |
| Sebastian 20.09.2010 05:39 |
Sure, but the bank wouldn't give you installment credit if you were 'broke'. AFAIK (and I think one of the documentaries shows the actual contract), each of them earnt sixty quid a week after 'SHA' (i.e. over 3 grand per year, in 1974-5). Was it very little money compared to what the management was getting for the album the band had made and the single Freddie'd written? Of course. But, were they broke? Of course not. |
| tcc 20.09.2010 07:39 |
You are just looking at the income side. If expenditure equals income, they will of course be broke. |
| Sebastian 20.09.2010 08:36 |
In which case the bank wouldn't have given Rog the loan and he wouldn't have gotten the Alfetta. But he did... so, they weren't broke. |
| tcc 20.09.2010 08:54 |
Like you the bank would only look at the income and what a person declares as liabilities (and maybe his mother could have acted as his guarantor :-) ). After paying for the monthly instalment he could be broke until the next pay cheque. Edit: Put it another way, they were broke after incurring the expenditure on the expensive items that you noted. Amen :-) |
| rhyeking 20.09.2010 10:07 |
I never heard they were outright broke or destitute, but that they had to keep going to Trident for money like kids asking for their allowance, which, after a couple of hit singles (TSSOR, KQ, NIH), probably seemed to them to be not befitting their status as a successful rock band. That was why they went to John Reid (Elton John's manager/lawyer) to get out of their contract. I think it's in The Early Years biography where I read the most in-depth account of what the contract was and the author made a good case that Queen weren't being as mistreated as some accounts lead us to believe (though Queen might disagree). Still, they wanted out and that was probably for the best. |
| Holly2003 20.09.2010 11:03 |
"For instance, there's the thing about the Flash reprise (after The Hero finishes) " I know what Brian said about this and I suppose I have to take his word for it, but up to the point he said it I would've bet my right arm that bit was played on the Red Special. |
| Sebastian 20.09.2010 11:48 |
> Like you the bank would only look at the income and what a person declares as liabilities (and maybe his mother could have acted as his guarantor:-) ). In which case, he still was not broke. > After paying for the monthly instalment he could be broke until the next pay cheque. Sure... if, if, if, if... if one of John's kids got kidnapped in '81 and he paid a multi-millionaire ransom, he'd be broke after AOBTD, but that's purely counterfactual. Queen weren't earning, in mid 75, what they deemed fair, while their record company executives were swimming in money. But Queen weren't broke. > I never heard they were outright broke or destitute Classic Albums ANATO DVD, just after they mention KQ, Rog says 'we were broke'. Keyword: broke. Listen to it again: he doesn't say bloke, oak, yoke or roque, he says 'broke'. Which of course they weren't. Sure, he may have been saying it as a figure of speech, but my point is people taking his word for it are quite misled, just as those who believed ______ (insert overstretched statement). > That was why they went to John Reid (Elton John's manager/lawyer) to get out of their contract. AFAIK, they went to John AFTER they'd gotten out of their contract. They needed a manager who was persuasive enough to convince EMI to invest loads and loads of dosh on them. Who knows how much ANATO cost, but just to make a slight idea: Trident charged 25-41 quid per hour in 1972. How much could Sound & Recording Mobiles charge in 1975? Roundhouse? Lansdowne? Rockfield Quadrangle? Rockfield Coach? Olympic? Scorpio? Elstree? How many hours did they hire those studios (sometimes simultaneously) in a five-month period (recordings started in late August but rehearsals had begun three weeks prior, and that still counts)? How much did it cost them to transport equipment (including a 9 ft piano which wasn't hired for free, BTW) from and to the different studios? So... without somebody like John Reid, EMI would've never signed the cheques, and the album wouldn't have been made. While they weren't broke, they were still not even close to being able to pay for the whole thing themselves, not when their weekly wage was 60 GBP each. > I know what Brian said about this and I suppose I have to take his word for it, but up to the point he said it I would've bet my right arm that bit was played on the Red Special. So would I. In case he indeed used a different guitar, that proves how much of his sound is in his fingers. |
| rhyeking 20.09.2010 12:01 |
I agree, Seb. After work, I'll throw on The Magic Years Vol. 1 and see what John Reid and co. had to say about the contract issues. I'm pretty sure there are some specifics in there. I'll try to find The Early Years bits about the contract, it's been a while since I read that book. I'll let you know what I find. |
| YannickJoker 20.09.2010 15:41 |
Another widespread erroneuous piece of information: Elton John being the gorilla in the I'm Going Slightly Mad video. As far as I know, that's complete rubbish but people tend to believe it for some strange reason. |
| tomchristie22 29.10.2015 01:45 |
rhyeking wrote: Re: BoRhap Video I'm not sure where the original attributtion of "first promo video" came from, but I always understood the meaning to be that it was one of the first of what we would understand as a 'modern video,' as in it wasn't just film of the band performing, it featured specific footage designed to be more abstract and artistic. Certainly bands like The Beatles were issuing promo films years before, but they weren't big production numbers (despite the relatively cheap cost of BR) the way Queen did it.Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane broke the 'performance video' mold in 1967 - any claim of Bo Rhap or Thriller being truly the first of any sort of music video is pretty baseless, despite how widespread those claims are. Certainly, those videos were significant milestones, but they didn't originate anything. EDIT: Although Thriller may have been one of the first music videos, if not the first, to be a short film with extensive non-musical sequences. |
| Barry Durex 29.10.2015 05:06 |
YourValentine wrote: Here is one wrong assumption: The spoken words on WWRY BBC sessions are NOT from Hermann Hesse's novel Siddharta. I had my doubts about that from the beginning and I compared each and every line of the novel with those words - they are not from Siddharta.The female voice heard discussing Brahmanism is taken from a BBC Radio documentary "Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom." -Aristotle |
| Barry Durex 20.05.2018 10:38 |
The inspiration for bicycle race link |
| MisterCosmicc 21.05.2018 06:12 |
Keep going |
| emrabt 31.05.2018 06:51 |
[quote]I'm curious as to when the older songs were decided on? [\quote] It's been pointed out in the past that The Great Pretender \ The Freddie Mercury Album miss out the two Freddie tracks which end up on Made in Heaven. So the idea to use those may have been a very very early one. |
| kosimodo 31.05.2018 18:39 |
The tour de france did pass montreux the 19th of july 1978. Gerrie Knetemann won that day in Lausanne. |