| Daniel Nester 20.05.2012 20:15 |
Just got The Complete Illustrated Lyrics, and boy, didn't know this little chapter from Queen's history. A "rare and intriguing telex" (a precursor to fax), provided from Jim Mazza of Capitol Records, with suggested "new lyrical changes" to Radio Ga Ga's lyrics. Here's part of the top of the note: These are by no means professional lyrics," the note reads, "only ideas, and do in fact change the sentiment of the song to one of a supporting endorsement [sic] of radio's future, rather and a predictor of its demise. PLS understand that the American radio community is extremely concerned over the impact of video music is having on their listenership, thus our concern and recommended lyrical changes. Then what follows looks to be, almost to the last word save a few differences, the actual lyrics to "Radio Ga Ga." (One major difference "Like all good things on you we depend" is "Without you how could we pretend"; which, as I think of it, seems might actually have sounded less clunky!) Anyway, some questions I have after looking at this, and I'd be curious to hear what people think, especially those who have the book. 1. Wow. Did Queen really change or revise the lyrics to "Radio Ga Ga" to please their American radio company? It looks like they did. 2. Did they do this to better their chances for U.S. airplay? (Even though it didn't work as well as they hoped.) 3. Might this be a rare moment of candor on Queen Productions' part, that they were open to changing lyrics of their new single? 4. I wonder what the "old" lyrics read like? Besides the "ca ca" Roger's kid origin story of the song, I didn't know the first lyrics to "Ga Ga" were anti-radio. Another note: here's some info on the signee, Jim Mazza: http://www.dreamcatchermgmt.com/jmazza.html |
| inu-liger 20.05.2012 21:12 |
Is that even ethical for a record company to try and force themselves into the writing process? |
| Daniel Nester 20.05.2012 21:14 |
I know! And the image of the telex has a penciled-in edit on Queen's end, as if they just took and started working with it. So it seems the Queen Camp just took it and worked with it? I'm still processing, to be honest. |
| thomasquinn 32989 21.05.2012 07:50 |
When it came to commercialism, Queen never had any kind of backbone. That's also why they played Sun City, despite all the latter-day bullshit Brian May is telling about that. |
| thomasquinn 32989 21.05.2012 07:54 |
inu-liger wrote: Is that even ethical for a record company to try and force themselves into the writing process?Of course not. Then again, ethical record companies tend to get seriously screwed by their competitors. Most bands tend to fight this kind of interference off, but Queen seems to have valued money above all else. (case in point: ESP-Disk', an alternative folk and jazz record label in the 1960s and 1970s, offered their artists non-exclusive contracts - any music they recorded for ESP remained theirs, so they were free to reissue it, or use it to get a better contract with another label. ESP was later completely destroyed by large labels, who reissued music originally released on ESP, and then sued ESP for copyright infringement - and actually won!!!) |
| Daniel Nester 21.05.2012 08:07 |
I think this also shows some more-than-previously-reported eagerness for Radio Ga Ga and The Works to crack America. |
| Micrówave 21.05.2012 10:23 |
inu-liger wrote: Is that even ethical for a record company to try and force themselves into the writing process? That kind of depends on your point-of-view. The obvious first thought would be no, but think of what would have happened to the careers of Whitney Houston, Rihanna, Katy Perry or even those boy bands of the 90s... without the record company churning out those songs, they would have been lucky to make it past Disney TV. Although, Whitney could really sing above her peers... Try the Neville's Fiyo On The Bayou LP 1980. The record company is basically putting up all the cash to get the record out there... Established bands have a choice to self-produce, as Queen would have, but the power to market your product (until recently) was really left to the big labels. I think that clearly gives them a right, the band really is working for them. |
| Daniel Nester 21.05.2012 10:46 |
Whoah. Doesn't sound very rock and roll ethos-friendly though. My sense is they wouldn't have acceded to this kind of thing in 1977-1980 or even earlier -- we all know the "we won't edit Bo Rhap for airplay" story. Perhaps this as much about making sure Roger has his first hit single? |
| Sebastian 21.05.2012 17:48 |
The less you've accomplished, the more you can risk (and not the other way around as loads of people think). In 1975, Queen had been a two-hit wonder in Britain (NIH didn't make it to top ten) and a one-hit wonder in other territories; both for them and for the record company, releasing Bo Rhap was a risk, but a calculated risk ... despite its 'weirdness', it still had many of the hit-single traits of the time (loads of vocals, powerful guitar solo, memorable melody), and songs like 'Hey Jude' and 'I'm Not in Love' had already been No 1 being longer than the average single. A lot of people have, in retrospect, overstated loads of 'facts' about 'Bo Rhap' simply because the truth sounds far less spectacular and, as such, less appealing to loyal fans (e.g. the truth is that Everett played it on his programme FOUR times, NOT fourteen). Just read its Wikipedia article: inaccurate, but impressive. Once an act has already made it, they become slaves of their own success. The more success you have, the more you're pigeonholed into that. How many tickets would've the Bee Gees sold on post '77 concerts had they dropped the disco-era set and focused solely on the (many) great songs they had before and after that? Queen played before their largest audience ever in 1976, and played songs like Flick of the Wrist and You Take My Breath Away (the latter not even being officially released, and its recordings hadn't been completed yet). They were already famous thanks to Bo Rhap, Best Friend, Killer Queen and Seven Seas, but they weren't the hit-making machine they'd be ten years later (imagine them trying to succeed at Wembley playing FOTW or YTMBA and omitting the likes of Magic, Ga Ga, Dust and Break Free). |
| Daniel Nester 21.05.2012 17:54 |
So Sebastian, in this reading of their career, do you consider the relative flop of Hot Space as scaring them out of their wits, to the point where they'd change the words to the lead-off single to please their American label? I mean, picking only the hits for a set list is one thing, and even not cutting down a song for single release or for different radio formats is standard practice. But changing the words to a song to change the meaning? |
| Sebastian 22.05.2012 00:46 |
Worst case scenario in '75: Bo Rhap flopped; not a big deal - they were still relatively young, they had offers (e.g. Brian had been invited to join Sparks), they'd never been in the top so they didn't know what they were missing on, there was still time for Brian to work as astrophysicist, John as engineer, etc. Worst case scenario in January '83: Ga Ga flopped; huge loss of credibility (continuing with the HS fiasco), the end of an era of fame and success they'd grown used to and, remember, the more you get, the more you want. Look at what happened with TCR: they'd been saying for years that they enjoyed playing together, they had the right chemistry, etc. Yet after just one album, they quietly dropped the collaboration. Do you think that would have happened if TCR had been multi-platinum? The fact is, when the cash cow doesn't yield more golden milk, it's often taken to the slaughterhouse. In '75 there wasn't even a cash cow (only two relatively minor hits), in '83 it was huge. Indeed that's what happened: Ga Ga's success in Europe represented a new fresh era of a reinvented band enjoying huge popularity, but in America it didn't do too well and it was all downhill from there. |
| GratefulFan 22.05.2012 00:50 |
Pretty interesting. I wonder how common this kind of thing was? By coincidence I read very recently of interference in Phil Collins' 'In the Air Tonight' where the head of the American label Atlantic Records made him add drums early in the song on the original single where there had previously been none until well in, over concerns about audience reception. In the case of Ga Ga the concern from the record company is reasonable enough given the potential impact on radio play, which could in turn be a reasonable concern of the band. Given that the fortunes of many people depend on the success of a record it's even possible an equally principled stance in an instance like this is not to dig in if little that is vital to the art is lost. Bohemian Rhapsody was worth the fight, but Ga Ga may not have been. At that stage of their lives and careers diminished fire for this kind of battle might have been predictable. Also, it was a song that had already been greatly altered by Fred from its original form. Maybe there just wasn't anybody to whom it belonged enough to be passionate about any of it. |
| Sebastian 22.05.2012 06:08 |
I think it also depends on whether they feel the person suggesting the change(s) has a point or not. A three-minute Bo Rhap would be a huge loss compared to the 5.55 masterpiece it is; a Radio Ga Ga with a different take on the lyrics (but respecting its form, arrangement, etc.) wasn't such a radical change (for their standards). |
| GratefulFan 22.05.2012 12:37 |
Yes, that's a better of expression of much of what I meant when I said that where Bo Rhap was worth the fight, Ga Ga may not have been. Internally some songs can go through significant changes. Recall Roger saying on the One Vision studio clips that the song used to be about Martin Luther King, but he had no idea what it was about after all the lyrical changes made by the group. If as a matter of course songs often bear only passing resemblance to what they once were, then the offending issue here is that the changes came from the record company and not the artists. That seems to imply that artistic control should always trump every other consideration if the music is to have integrity. But really, if the creator of a song is open to having it altered, as Roger clearly was with this one given Fred's extensive reworking, then each alteration should be judged on its merits regardless of which cog in the wheel of getting a song from idea to market made the suggestion. Video was still new in 1984 and how radio would have to evolve to stay competetive was still unclear. The sensitivity in the birthplace of MTV is understandable in retrospect, and perhaps understandable to the band once pointed out at the time. 20 plus years later, things are clearer and more secure, and there's room now for songs like Springsteen's 'Radio Nowhere'. Overall it's an interesting bit of history and an instructive insight into the workings of the business. I think this particular expedience benefits from the perspective of the quality and personal nature of much of Queen's catalogue and their history of fighting for freedom when it mattered - for Bo Rhap, from stifling management, among each other to wrench out the best from often very diverse instincts. |
| mooghead 22.05.2012 13:07 |
I can't be surprised that its Roger who's lyrics got messed with, he has been responsible for some of the worst lyrical atrocities in history.... |
| Daniel Nester 22.05.2012 13:09 |
I wonder if Queen Productions et al realize what piece of band history they let us in on with including the telex in the book. Even if the song was not worth the fight, as we're saying here, and if the context had changed, it's still the lead single of a Queen album. And we know Brian had some issues with Capitol circa Hot Space. I just can't imagine they got this telex and said, "OK then, let's re-record the lead vocals for this." |
| 12yrslouetta 22.05.2012 14:54 |
This is interesting actually. In the end youre only as good as your last hit. The Game was 1980 and the Works was 1984, thats the hugest lifetime in music terms waitinf for a hit single. And on the recent Queen documentary it said that Freddies advance for his solo album was larger than Queens for the Works. Queen had obviously fallen quite far. But on the other side though Record Companies are always always interfering in bands art. Its nothing new at all. Maybe Queen read the teletex and figured it was a good idea |
| inu-liger 22.05.2012 16:35 |
Daniel Nester wrote: I wonder if Queen Productions et al realize what piece of band history they let us in on with including the telex in the book. Even if the song was not worth the fight, as we're saying here, and if the context had changed, it's still the lead single of a Queen album. And we know Brian had some issues with Capitol circa Hot Space. I just can't imagine they got this telex and said, "OK then, let's re-record the lead vocals for this." Yeah, I'm just wondering what their initial reaction was to that telex! Couldn't have been a pleasant one to start off with. And here's an issue I have with that telex...the record company insists it's not professional lyrics by any means, right? HOWEVER, professional or not, they did not list name(s) of who made the lyrical changes, so I think that using those lyrics right off the bat could have led to a compromising situation down the line as far as royalty demands and litigation go. Hence my concern about the unethical quality of the telex. |
| Daniel Nester 22.05.2012 19:44 |
Inu-liger, it's signed Jim Mazza, who's a big muckety-muck record label guy. So maybe he should get co-songwriting credit? :) |
| rhyeking 22.05.2012 21:07 |
Just so I understand the sequence of events here... By October 26th, 1983, "Radio Ga Ga" was close to completed, since it was a single at the end of January. Jim Beach likely sent a copy of the forthcoming single's tracks to the Capital Records. Someone in Jim Mazza's office transcribed the lyrics for him, he made changes, telexed the changes back and Jim Beach noted a mistake ("my" instead of "the"), noted the line "And just don't care", and made a note to put this telex into the "Band Meeting File" (pencilled in at the bottom). Presumably there was a band meeting and Mazza changes were discussed. The thing is, what were the original lyrics sent to Mazza? Were they the same as the ones we know now? Were they different (more cynical) and Queen used Mazza's changes, adjusting them somewhat? There's not really much else to go on. If in the band meeting Roger felt Mazza had a point and was willing to change the lyric to something more optimistic, then that's his right. Maybe, after some consideration, Roger liked some of the new lyrics, once tidied up. If that was the case, he's still the songwriter, since it was his artistic decision to accept a change to what was probably still a work-in-progress. What key here is that Roger had the right to refuse any changes. Capitol might have not liked the lyrics, but they had obligations set out in their contract with Queen. If they refused to release the single, they might have faced legal action or perhaps were required to release a different track as a single. It's hard to say without knowing the particulars. And without Roger commenting on the impact that telex had on the song, we don't really know anything other than Mazza made a suggestion. |
| Daniel Nester 22.05.2012 21:46 |
We don't know what the "original" lyrics were, or if they were transcribed. But you have to read the cover letter, most of which I've transcribed. It seems that they are trying to change the meaning/intent/effect of the song. Whether that's one line, whole versus, we don't know. What we do know is that what is in the telex contains, save for one line and a couple words here and there, the exact lyrics to the finished song. What was different before? We'll never know probably. The way I'm interpreting it, however, there's a lot going on. The band effectively rubber-stamped any and all suggestions -- not "professional" and "only ideas" at that -- from the head of their record company. I don't think anyone can comment on the legalities or the ethics of this with real confidence or certainty. What is certain is the lyrics in the telex--and if you want, I'll go ahead and scan it from the book, since it's sometimes frustrating when people comment on stuff they don't get to listen to or buy or read. But if you have the book, there it is, right in the telex, the lyrics to Radio Ga Ga. |
| rhyeking 22.05.2012 22:20 |
I, too, have The Complete Illustrated Lyrics, but a scan might help others understand what we're talking about. I'm just hesitant to drawn too many conclusions from this single telex. Yes, they included it in the book, but by itself it's not conclusive of much without other evidence. There are key questions left unanswered, which I raised in my previous post. Basically, we have one piece of the story, that's all I'm saying. |
| GratefulFan 22.05.2012 22:31 |
With all the usual Wikipedia caveats, it may be worth noting that the wiki article says "Taylor originally conceived of it as "Radio caca" (from something his toddler son once said),[9] which doubled as a criticism of radio for the decrease in variety of programming and the type of music being played.[2] "Radio Ga Ga" in one of the original cassette boxes is called 'radio ca ca'.[10]" It goes on the explain his son's remark was in the context of listening to a "bad song" on the radio in Los Angeles. We all know the 'radio ca ca' story, but I've always assumed it was a rhythmic inspiration only and that it evolved into the core of the current song early on, but this new information throws all that up in the air. I recall a Roger interview where he playfully talked about the original lyrics being 'Radio Ca Ca' and then something like "and as far as I know they were never changed". He went on to suggest that if people listened to certain parts of the song they'd find that Fred never changed the words to Ga Ga. If true, I just thought it was an inside joke of sorts as the sounds are so similar nobody would really know. But I guess it's possible it was a minor but satisfying rebellion against the polite but pointed pressure from the record company. Part of what is fascinating about this is the fact that it would seem to be a significant part of the history of a song whose origin and development has been discussed fairly extensively by band members, yet they elected not to share this rather salient bit of information despite multiple opportunities. It does beg the question why now and why in such a back door and low key manner? It's just interesting. |
| tomchristie22 23.05.2012 03:59 |
The album version does indeed say 'radio ca ca, radio goo goo, radio ga ga' throughout, it's easy to pick up on in the regular song, and blatantly obvious with the isolated vocals from the multitracks. |
| thomasquinn 32989 23.05.2012 08:08 |
I think it's stunning that some people (notably Sebastian) are actually defending this. That just goes to show that some people here will applaud anything Queen has ever done, regardless of what it is. |
| thomasquinn 32989 23.05.2012 08:09 |
tomchristie22 wrote: The album version does indeed say 'radio ca ca, radio goo goo, radio ga ga' throughout, it's easy to pick up on in the regular song, and blatantly obvious with the isolated vocals from the multitracks.That's just not true. The 'c' and 'g' sounds are so close, especially at the start of a word, that you will hear whatever you expect to hear. |
| Sebastian 23.05.2012 11:03 |
FTR, thomasquinn 32989, I'm not defending them. I'm explaining why I think this case and Bo Rhap's length were different and not the same 'rules' or 'principles' apply. There's a big difference. |
| pma 23.05.2012 13:45 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:The phonetic 'k' sound is obvious to my ear, simply based on the amount of aspiration in its pronunciation, which would be notably absent in the 'g' of gaga. But you do make a point.tomchristie22 wrote: The album version does indeed say 'radio ca ca, radio goo goo, radio ga ga' throughout, it's easy to pick up on in the regular song, and blatantly obvious with the isolated vocals from the multitracks.That's just not true. The 'c' and 'g' sounds are so close, especially at the start of a word, that you will hear whatever you expect to hear. |
| rhyeking 23.05.2012 14:55 |
There's much to be said for the power of suggestion. Before Roger said they sang Ca-Ca and never changed it, I heard "Ga Ga," because that's the name of the song. It probably didn't occur to me that they were singing "Ca-Ca". Now that I know, I certainly sort of hear it better. |
| GT 23.05.2012 15:43 |
They are singing 'Ca Ca' in the first line of the chorus. |
| mooghead 23.05.2012 15:48 |
Have the original lyrics to Radio Ga Ga now become the most sought after piece of Queen material out there? |
| mooghead 23.05.2012 15:49 |
JSS - I demand you upload the original lyrics version of Radio Ga Ga right now! |
| GratefulFan 23.05.2012 17:20 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: I think it's stunning that some people (notably Sebastian) are actually defending this. That just goes to show that some people here will applaud anything Queen has ever done, regardless of what it is.It's little to do with defending and applauding, and much more of a 'Huh.', followed by a 'how might this have developed?'. When Fred took over the song it was motivated by his belief that it had the potential to be a big commercial hit. Everything he did to the song he did with that in mind. So when they ran into a likely unanticipated barrier to that in the form of American nervousness about the future of radio, you would have had them do what? Abandon the idea? Risk the success of the song and complicate their relationship with the record company so not a single ga ga, goo goo, ca ca or blah blah would be disturbed? Look, the song is so much fluff, a ditty. I'm sure most people sing it without even thinking about what they're singing. The chorus is so much nonsense that doesn't even fit the amended message of the song! It's not like they sold their soul so deeply personal material that was more than anything else crafted to say something important could shift a few more copies in America. It's a credit to the band we love that the quality and specialness of their catalogue often sweeps away the awareness that rock is a business too. This reminds us that once in a while it needed to be. If anything needs a defense I think it's the idea that anybody should be appalled by this. It's interesting, and not much more. |
| Daniel Nester 23.05.2012 21:28 |
I for one am not appalled, but if we're going to pile on Roger and Brian for shitting on the Queen legacy now by playing live with other people, then the least we can do is look at how they went about their career with a clear eye. Sun City, for me, is still a more than regrettable episode. Before Live Aid, I would have agreed with you that "Radio Ga Ga" is a minor moment in Queen history. But the lyrics to "Ga Ga," and the chorus, do make literal sense, and it's a signature late-era Queen tune. The lyrics were changed in the verses, not the chorus, anyway. But to each his/her own when selecting our moments to latch onto reading into and engaging in "Serious Discussion" of our favorite band. I am uneasy, for example, going gig-by-gig on amateur recordings and spotting when Freddie misses notes; that seems to be a colossal waste of time. |
| Daniel Nester 23.05.2012 21:28 |
I for one am not appalled, but if we're going to pile on Roger and Brian for shitting on the Queen legacy now by playing live with other people, then the least we can do is look at how they went about their career with a clear eye. Sun City, for me, is still a more than regrettable episode. Before Live Aid, I would have agreed with you that "Radio Ga Ga" is a minor moment in Queen history. But the lyrics to "Ga Ga," and the chorus, do make literal sense, and it's a signature late-era Queen tune. The lyrics were changed in the verses, not the chorus, anyway. But to each his/her own when selecting our moments to latch onto reading into and engaging in "Serious Discussion" of our favorite band. I am uneasy, for example, going gig-by-gig on amateur recordings and spotting when Freddie misses notes; that seems to be a colossal waste of time. |
| Sebastian 23.05.2012 22:34 |
Had they retained the original title, would Stefani Germanotta (sp?) be known as Lady Caca? Or would she be classier and rechristen herself Miss Defecation? |
| inu-liger 23.05.2012 22:39 |
Wasn't the 1989 "limo" interview with Brian and Roger one of the first instances of them admitting the "ca ca" instances in the sung lyrics? |
| tomchristie22 24.05.2012 02:05 |
GT wrote: They are singing 'Ca Ca' in the first line of the chorus.Thanks for clarifying GT |
| Wiley 24.05.2012 09:42 |
mooghead wrote: JSS - I demand you upload the original lyrics version of Radio Ga Ga right now!You leave Jeff Scott Soto alone! He's too busy trying to make the Queen Extravaganza not sound like crap. ;) |
| Daniel Nester 24.05.2012 10:00 |
Wish the multitracks were still somewhere online. Hint hint. |
| mooghead 24.05.2012 10:44 |
Wiley wrote:And failing.....mooghead wrote: JSS - I demand you upload the original lyrics version of Radio Ga Ga right now!You leave Jeff Scott Soto alone! He's too busy trying to make the Queen Extravaganza not sound like crap. ;) |
| Daniel Nester 24.05.2012 12:16 |
JSS does seem to be taller than everyone else in the QE. |
| GratefulFan 24.05.2012 12:44 |
Daniel Nester wrote:Before Live Aid, I would have agreed with you that "Radio Ga Ga" is a minor moment in Queen history. But the lyrics to "Ga Ga," and the chorus, do make literal sense, and it's a signature late-era Queen tune. The lyrics were changed in the verses, not the chorus, anyway.I don't think I said it was a minor moment in Queen history, I said, essentially, that it was lyrically shallow. It's a very on the nose reflection on radio's hey day with a bunch of stuff in the chorus that really doesn't fit the altered message of the song anymore. It's entire reason for being was to produce an infectious mid eighties hit. After what I'm sure was serious consideration of the options, the stakes, the precedent, etc. they seem to have elected to take the path of least resistance. We probably all had about the same initial visceral rejection of the 'rightness' of all this, but for me at least I've found that an objective consideration of the known facts and the ones that can be reasonably assumed doesn't really bear those initial feelings out in the end. They did what they decided they needed to do to properly support their hit. What, and this is real question, would people have had them do differently? The new thing that's fascinating me is the possibility of a little bit of subversion even in their acquiescence. Certainly the retention of 'ca ca' is interesting, and some of the dystopian imagery in the video including that around symbols of conformity are food for thought as well. Deliberate or no, it's like they changed the words to the song but left fundamental bits of an opposing message intact. |
| Daniel Nester 27.05.2012 12:29 |
"The new thing that's fascinating me is the possibility of a little bit of subversion even in their acquiescence." Wow, that's really good. That would mean they're more clever than myself and others, which is definitely the case. Nice one! |
| Daniel Nester 27.05.2012 12:36 |
Real quick: I made a post over at my blog, complete with a scan of the page in the book: link |
| ActionFletch 28.05.2012 01:58 |
Smell The Glove... "..you put a greased naked woman on all fours with a dog collar around her neck... Pushing a black glove in her face to sniff it. You don't find that sexist?" I hate record company interference! |
| rhyeking 28.05.2012 06:56 |
"You should've seen their original idea. It wasn't a glove." |