| Stormtrooper076 13.11.2011 23:53 |
I remember reading something about this mysterious track that said certain sounds would turn up at significant times like there's something at the time where Freddie passed etc. Does this sound familiar? |
| john bodega 14.11.2011 00:07 |
I think the theory ran that the track length, doubled (22ish minutes?) would wind up at just over 45 minutes, and since Freddie lived to just over 45 years of age, that somehow certain noises in the track would correlate with events in his life. That's all I remember. I think it's hooey because the spookiest part of that track is when it goes quiet and all of a sudden those spooky chimes go off. I have no idea what that's supposed to signify - certainly not him dying, because it's not at the end. But it's the damned scariest thing on the track. I actually pulled my headphones off the first time I heard it, because it was late at night and I was not in the mood to be scared. |
| dysan 14.11.2011 04:13 |
MIH would be 100 times better without that track and the pointless 4 second yeah track. It makes it seem messy and cobbled together at the last minute with no quality control. Oh wait... |
| deleted user 14.11.2011 05:00 |
I listened to this track for only the second time yesterday and now see there is a posting about it - spooky! |
| MadTheSwine73 14.11.2011 08:35 |
Personally, I love the track. However, I must agree wit Zebonka, the part where everything stops os pretty creepy. |
| rhyeking 14.11.2011 11:54 |
I still consider "It's a Beautiful Day (Reprise)" to be a single song mastered into three parts. Which is to say, I don't consider "Yeah" Or "Track 13" to be their own separate pieces, just their own separate tracks. I think the reason they mastered them this way, with these breaks, was just cheekiness and them playing with the medium, not them proclaiming: "Look, here are two more individual, wholly unique songs!" Just my view, anyway. And if you find the CD version too long, the LP fades out after the second "yeah." |
| dysan 14.11.2011 12:53 |
I agree with that. I guess it's one of those CD quirks (it was the first CD they did with CD as the primary format) that hasn't aged that well. An attempt to make the CD a more interactive experience which is doesn't need to be. In fact, several albums that year had little tricks like that - check The Stone Roses Second Coming - it has 12 songs and something like 99 actual track marks. Annoying! |
| Queen1973 14.11.2011 13:09 |
Crazy i was listening to this track again before i signed on, 22 mins 33 seconds. I read somewhere 22 is the years since there first album Queen 1973--------Made In Heaven 1995, thats the 22 and the 33 i cant remeber what that was for. The track before the yeah......is a sample from Action this day.. The 22 minute length of Track 13 echoes the 22 year gap between the release of 'Made in Heaven' and Queen, the band's first album, with key moments in the time-span (such as Freddie Mercury's death in 1991 (18:00)) being echoed with more dramatic and eerie notes than earlier minutes in the piece. At the end following a symbol build-up, a sound resembling a cartoonish spaceship is heard, which could be signalling that Mercury has left the planet as all of his vocals have been used up. Finally, at the end of the "Untitled" Track 13, a voice is heard (likely Freddie's) saying 'Fab!' |
| dbruce 14.11.2011 13:34 |
kevinhairsineevans wrote: The track before the yeah......is a sample from Action this day.. Whereabouts in Action is this taken from? Every time I listen to Action I can never quite place where this Yeah is pulled from!! Cheers |
| john bodega 15.11.2011 04:35 |
Oh, that explanation makes a heap more sense. Cheers |
| Scofflaw 15.11.2011 10:10 |
Probably the creepiest song I've ever heard, and also one of my favorites. If it does correlate with events in his life, I'd love to know how so and what each part means. That creepy part in the middle with the chimes still scares me, even though I've heard it several times. As a side note, I've always thought this would end up as part of the score for the Queen biopic, if it ever happens. |
| rhyeking 15.11.2011 11:24 |
I'm not sure I buy into the 22 minutes = 22 years idea. It seems like someone trying to add more significance to the piece than was intended. Yes, sometimes works are given that kind of subtle meaning (such as "'39" being the 39th album track), but I personally don't see it (hear it?) here. In order to work, each minute must represent a year. Therefore, each set of sounds represents something happening in that year? Are they referring to points significant to the band? To Freddie? Their personal lives? Which events? Why those and not others? Is there significance to the different musical bits used (the percussion represents X? The piano represents Y? Freddie laughing in "1993" is what?)? Honestly, there ought to be a consistent method to the application of an idea in order for it carry the impact of that idea most fully. And don't call it "Abstract," because you can't be both specific (22 years) and abstract at the same time. Also, given that I consider "It's A Beautiful Day (Reprise)" to be the entire 25:37 long song, including the closing ambient portion, it no longer really works on that level. And what about the LP version, where the track fades out after the second "Yeah"? Is the significance now only applicable to the CD? Does anyone have the cassette version, does it have the full IABD-R track? Anyway, this is just my opinion. I think the extended ambient closing was David Richards' successful experiment which the band decided to include, because it *is* cool and gets people talking and they'd not done anything quite like it before. I'm a big fan of Mike Oldfield, who is known for creating epic (22- to 25-minute long) pieces on many of his albums, even going so far on his masterpiece Amarok to create a 60:02 long track (that's the entire album, which is an unbroken hour-long piece; no individual tracks at all, and it's brilliant). IABD-R has more in common with some of those pieces, in my opinion, than anything else. Sorry for harping on this. I'm not trying to ruin anyone's enjoyment. It's a long, beautiful piece of music and need not be anything else. |
| dysan 15.11.2011 12:46 |
1993 = first solo number one? :o) |
| rhyeking 15.11.2011 13:42 |
dysan wrote: 1993 = first solo number one? :o) If you subscribe to the 22 minutes = 22 years theory, sure, why not? Given that things of relative importance happen in Queen's existence every year, it's easy to play the game of "this must equal that" in retrospect. When there's a lot to pick from, it's easy to see parallels where none exist. Also occurring in 1993: Parlophone re-issued "The Great Pretender" single The Brian May Band toured the US and Europe The Left-Handed Marriage album Crazy Chain was released Hollywood Records released "Driven By You" in the US The Five Live EP was released (also a #1) Brian and Paul Rodgers record "I'm Ready" for Paul's solo album "Resurrection" is released as a single "Too Much Love Will Kill You" is released as a single "Hard Business" debuts on Frank Stubbs Promotes as the theme song The Freddie Mercury Remixes EP is released The Cross play their last concert with Roger "Last Horizon" is released as a single "Love Token (Explicit Version)" is released on the Classic Rock Collection, Vol. 4 CD from Rock CD magazine. It was a busier time for Brian, since he was dealing with his grief by working overtime promoting "Back To The Light" and doing side projects. |
| GratefulFan 15.11.2011 17:57 |
rhyeking wrote: I'm not sure I buy into the 22 minutes = 22 years idea. It seems like someone trying to add more significance to the piece than was intended. Yes, sometimes works are given that kind of subtle meaning (such as"'39" being the 39th album track), but I personally don't see it (hear it?) here. In order to work, each minute must represent a year. Therefore, each set of sounds represents something happening in that year? Are they referring to points significant to the band? To Freddie? Their personal lives? Which events? Why those and not others? Is there significance to the different musical bits used (the percussion represents X? The piano represents Y? Freddie laughing in "1993" is what?)? Honestly, there ought to be a consistent method to the application of an idea in order for it carry the impact of that idea most fully. And don't call it "Abstract," because you can't be both specific (22 years) and abstract at the same time. I have no opinion really, but am pointing out that this is fallacious logic. The work could certainly have deliberately been 22 minutes long, with something deliberate placed at the segment that would correlate to the loss of Freddie (or not), and everything else be just music. There is no requirement that every minute must reflect something happening in that year. This is the rough intellectual equivalent of your claim that thinking Bohemian Rhapsody was in whole or in part autobiographical somehow negates a belief in Fred's ability to weave a purely fictional tale of significance i.e. it's a completely bogus argument. |
| rhyeking 15.11.2011 20:40 |
There's no fallacy in my asking for clarity about an interpretation of a piece of art or of the artist's motivation. If the artist's intention is not clear, questions have to be asked. If the artist's statement is muddied by ineffective execution, questions will expose that. It is the artist's responsibility to have clear intent and to be able to defend it. Being vague, non-committal or generally wishy-washy about their idea does not make for an impactful artistic vision. |
| rhyeking 15.11.2011 20:56 |
As to "Bohemian Rhapsody," since you brought it up, you still fail to see my point. It's not about whether Freddie was creative enough to write the song solely from his imagination or not, it's about the fact that certain fans seem to think that something so evocative could ONLY come out of his direct personal experience. In his lifetime he denied such personal motivations were behind it, but those are patently ignored now because the tragedy of his death paints a more romantic picture of he himself being the tragic figure in the song. |
| Micrówave 16.11.2011 11:21 |
I thought we were supposed to be watching The Wizard Of Oz while playing Track 13. The flying monkeys appear right when Freddie dies. |
| GratefulFan 16.11.2011 12:19 |
rhyeking wrote: There's no fallacy in my asking for clarity about an interpretation of a piece of art or of the artist's motivation. If the artist's intention is not clear, questions have to be asked. If the artist's statement is muddied by ineffective execution, questions will expose that. It is the artist's responsibility to have clear intent and to be able to defend it. Being vague, non-committal or generally wishy-washy about their idea does not make for an impactful artistic vision. I don't really know or care what any of that is meant to mean, but my point stands: It's is not a reasonable argument against the length of the piece being significant or the possibility of Fred's death being marked in the piece to say that the intention of every other minute is not clear. To repeat, what follows is crap, with the parts in bold especially crap: In order to work, each minute must represent a year. Therefore, each set of sounds represents something happening in that year? Are they referring to points significant to the band? To Freddie? Their personal lives? Which events? Why those and not others? Is there significance to the different musical bits used (the percussion represents X? The piano represents Y? Freddie laughing in "1993" is what?)? Honestly, there ought to be a consistent method to the application of an idea in order for it carry the impact of that idea most fully. And don't call it "Abstract," because you can't be both specific (22 years) and abstract at the same time. Queen was under no artistic obligation to make every minute reflect a year. Get real. Once again, you're so hot to undermine the ideas of other people (which is different from simply constructing an opposing argument) that you don't even care if you make any sense! |
| GratefulFan 16.11.2011 12:36 |
rhyeking wrote: As to "Bohemian Rhapsody," since you brought it up, you still fail to see my point. It's not about whether Freddie was creative enough to write the song solely from his imagination or not, it's about the fact that certain fans seem to think that something so evocative could ONLY come out of his direct personal experience. In his lifetime he denied such personal motivations were behind it, but those are patently ignored now because the tragedy of his death paints a more romantic picture of he himself being the tragic figure in the song. The only fan I'm aware of that has ever implied that there is some issue around the idea "that something so evocative could ONLY come out of his direct personal experience" is YOU! The original thread: link Fred said in one way or another all his songs were about love, or alternatively, about relationships. Like many songwriters he wanted people to find their own lives and meanings in his songs. That a private gay man might have declined to describe in intimate and frank detail what may have been beautifully and creatively camouflaged struggles around those issues can hardly be considered proof of anything. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. |
| MercurialFreddie 16.11.2011 12:40 |
Didn't Brian May clear this up saying that the track represents "night" while the rest of the MIH album represents day ? I've seen that statement somewhere on his soapbox. |
| rhyeking 16.11.2011 15:07 |
GratefulFan wrote:rhyeking wrote: There's no fallacy in my asking for clarity about an interpretation of a piece of art or of the artist's motivation. If the artist's intention is not clear, questions have to be asked. If the artist's statement is muddied by ineffective execution, questions will expose that. It is the artist's responsibility to have clear intent and to be able to defend it. Being vague, non-committal or generally wishy-washy about their idea does not make for an impactful artistic vision.I don't really know or care what any of that is meant to mean, but my point stands: It's is not a reasonable argument against the length of the piece being significant or the possibility of Fred's death being marked in the piece to say that the intention of every other minute is not clear. To repeat, what follows is crap, with theparts in bold especially crap: In order to work, each minute must represent a year. Therefore, each set of sounds represents something happening in that year? Are they referring to points significant to the band? To Freddie? Their personal lives? Which events? Why those and not others? Is there significance to the different musical bits used (the percussion represents X? The piano represents Y? Freddie laughing in "1993" is what?)? Honestly, there ought to be a consistent method to the application of an idea in order for it carry the impact of that idea most fully. And don't call it "Abstract," because you can't be both specific (22 years) and abstract at the same time. Queen was under no artistic obligation to make every minute reflect a year. Get real. Once again, you're so hot to undermine the ideas of other people (which is different from simply constructing an opposing argument) that you don't even care if you make any sense! ++++++++++++++++++++++ Geez, wipe the foam from your mouth and actually read what I write using the sense God gave you. I said I didn't buy the 22 minutes = 22 years idea, because as a fan theory, it doesn't hold up, in my opinion. It's vague and only works superficially. It falls apart under detailed scrutiny. The portions of my post which you emphasized (thanks, it saves me doing that, by the way) is my explaining one of the many things a person has to look for in competent critical analysis, not mention basic understand art theory: Consistent method in the application of an idea. When the artist is unavailable for comment and interpretation is felt to be needed, as is the case here, a critic's proposed idea must be tested against all possible details provided in the work. The more details that exist in the piece which provide evidence of the artist's intent, the more support the proposed idea has that the intent has been isolated. The fewer examples one finds in the piece to support the idea, the less likely it is that proposed idea has merit. Seriously, this is pretty basic stuff. Most of us learned it high school. |
| GratefulFan 16.11.2011 17:25 |
Thankfully after the callow if earnest intellectual wankery of Grade 13 English class many go on to university where they eventually get their heads out of their asses and open those newly liberated minds to the finer points of reason. Although there are shades of a couple of the standard informal fallacies here (the fallacy of composition, or division, depending on how you look at things), what it is most surely is a good old fashioned false dilemma. The options are not limited to 'Queen intended no correlation with their band history' or 'Queen intended complete correlation with their band history'. There are effectively unlimited possibilities in between, with each possibility having as much likelihood as any other given the limitations of us as outsiders to divine the band's intentions. Whether there is more - or less - 'proof' supporting a false extreme is completely irrelevant. |
| Micrówave 16.11.2011 17:36 |
There is another interpretation that has never been discussed. Perhaps this was a production accident that was pressed on the first batch of CDs. The band heard it and said "well, they want bonus tracks, give 'em this crap". To which a faint "Yeah!" was heard because Roger was listening to Action This Day. Hence 2 bonus tracks were born and you're all suckers for thinking it's a SECRET MESSAGE FROM QUEEN AND GHOST OF FREDDIE. |
| rhyeking 16.11.2011 19:55 |
GratefulFan wrote: Thankfully after the callow if earnest intellectual wankery of Grade 13 English class many go on to university where they eventually get their heads out of their asses and open those newly liberated minds to the finer points of reason. Although there are shades of a couple of the standard informal fallacies here (the fallacy of composition, or division, depending on how you look at things), what it is most surely is a good old fashioned false dilemma. The options are not limited to 'Queen intended no correlation with their band history' or 'Queen intended complete correlation with their band history'. There are effectively unlimited possibilities in between, with each possibility having as much likelihood as any other given the limitations of us as outsiders to divine the band's intentions. Whether there is more - or less - 'proof' supporting a false extreme is completely irrelevant. I said nothing about extremes, nor did I say those were the only two options. That's your pathologically obtuse reading of my posts. I can't help you there, nor do I want to, so let's stick with what I did say, which was that the theory is superficial. Under the light of available information, it remains so. You also continue to confuse my views of the theory with my views of Queen's intentions with the song. I believe the theory is flawed for reasons noted previously. My only comment in this thread on Queen's intention was that of David Richards' experimentation. Pretty much every point in my various other posts is in regards to the quality of critical analysis as fans attempt to glean Queen's intention. What amuses me most is how you fail to really make any point of your own aside from the fact you don't like what I say and don't seem to understand it. I question an interpretation and explain my reason and methodology for doing so, and all you do pronounce that it's "crap" and a "fallacy," neither demonstrating how it is so nor offering an example of a more valid line of reasoning. Basically, you seem in over your head. I'll let you off and move on to other threads. Call me if you ever broaden your capacity for rational thought. |
| GratefulFan 17.11.2011 00:15 |
Exclusive options are precisely what you're arguing. "In order to work, each minute must represent a year" expressed another way is "either each minute must represent a year or it does not work". Not surprisingly the false dilemma is also referred to as 'the either or fallacy'. In fact artistic choices in the 18th minute could easily represent events in the18th year while the 4th and the 11th and the 21st minutes (or whatever) represent absolutely nothing other than having relative positions in the piece as a whole and to a moment in the piece that was chosen for its symbolism independently. "Either it is specific or it is abstract" fails similarly because of course a piece could easily have elements that are are both abstract ("the night") and concrete (a 22 minute length that represents the mathematical difference between 73 and 95). While I firmly doubt I'm failing to grasp the finer points of your wankery, let me simplify things anyway: just like your Bo Rap argument, you are throwing out a strawman. The proposition that 22 minutes = 22 years is not the same as the proposition that the song is 22 minutes long because there were 22 years between Queen and Made in Heaven, with or without symbolism at the 18th minute. The former imposes the burden of a sweeping and rigid thematic intention nobody implied was necessary or present but you, while the latter does not. Assuming your continuing inability to grasp the implications what you yourself are saying let alone what I'm saying, I'm happy to leave you to your concern for my rational thought on the belief that anybody whose opinion I would remotely give a toss about can plainly see that in this instance at least you're pontificating straight out of your ass. |
| john bodega 18.11.2011 01:06 |
"the callow if earnest intellectual wankery of Grade 13 English class" See, that's actually what Track 13 is about. 13. Wheels within wheels, people ... |
| tcc 18.11.2011 02:22 |
Hmm... 13 is 1 and 3 which is 1 dead and 3 still living. 1+3 = 4 which means the 4 band members. The plot thickens :-) |
| GratefulFan 18.11.2011 08:43 |
OMG OMG OMG. If you turn '13' 90 degrees to the right it's John Deacon sitting on his ass signing cheques. They were already mad in 1995! |
| Djdownsy 18.11.2011 19:43 |
This Thread went far beyond my expectations. To use a common phrase 'Shit's goin' down' By the way, to a previous poster asking about the 'Yeah' track, if you listen to the second chorus of 'ATD', the yeah part comes right after the first 'Action This Day' line in the second chorus. |
| GratefulFan 18.11.2011 22:28 |
Yes, two days later there are definitely things I would change. For example 'belief' in that last sentence was a little smug. I'd probably go with 'hope'. Ha ha. Honestly everytime I have a big enough 'fight' with Rhyeking I go away and feel bad/guilty for three days. I should probably stop it. But I can't seem to help myself. So I probably might not. Knowing that, I listened to his DSMN mix twice today in penance, once for this fight and once for the next one. |