Bohardy 15.03.2015 14:19 |
Following on from the MOTBQ piano thread, here's my version of In The Lap Of The Gods, as promised. It was (obviously) much quicker to do than MOTBQ, as once the intro's over there's not a lot to it. But, though I suspect people were only really interested in the intro, I did the whole song for the sake of completeness. Nailing all those arpeggios takes a bit of work, and I didn't quite get them all as precise and even as I would have liked. But what's there is the best of about a dozen takes. I suspect if we heard the isolated piano track, that Fred's playing wouldn't be totally clean here either. There's really only one brief section where I really can't hear what's being played, when it goes to C minor and the pattern changes for one bar. I've had to make a best guess as to what is going on there. Here you go, and hope you enjoy. |
BETA215 15.03.2015 14:26 |
GREAT!!! Not the best version ever, that would be played by Freddie (let's be honest), but one of the greatest! :) |
brunogorski 15.03.2015 14:56 |
WOW! |
hobbit in Rhye 15.03.2015 15:00 |
That's beautiful, thank you Bohardy. Perfect gift for a Sunday. You are right, once the intro's over there's not a lot to it, but the intro alone worths it, and then it's nice to hear the complete piece . Seriously, who would have thought this is a piano track came from a rock band? Freddie must have been a very sensitive soul to have written this. |
discosucks 15.03.2015 15:05 |
It's a beautiful piece. You've got a great ear! |
Ctour 15.03.2015 15:13 |
This sucks you ruined a good song |
BETA215 15.03.2015 15:19 |
:( EDIT: Ctour isn't a gentleman. Don't read what he says. Ignore him. <3 |
hobbit in Rhye 15.03.2015 15:21 |
Oh I'm sorry Bohardy, that's me who lead him here T_T Don't pay attention. |
Chief Mouse 15.03.2015 15:22 |
That was excellent listen! Thank you :) |
Ctour 15.03.2015 15:25 |
You suck bohardy |
moonie 15.03.2015 15:27 |
Very good indeed Bohardy.. Don't pay any attention to that chump.. |
ludwigs 15.03.2015 15:28 |
That's fantastic Bo!!!! Love it! You now have me wondering whether to complete my demo of this from 2003. Didn't have a decent piano (Roland EP-5) so it only went down to a low A. Had to transpose any lower notes with Transcribe. They all have this lack of bite to them.... Everything is just a demo and no proper take yet or mixing/eq etc etc so all parts will be re-recorded properly. You're a git!! Ha ha. You have caused me new interest into old demo's. If I were to do it...maybe we could join and I use your keys? (Just thinking) I have SO many others on the go and like I said, this is just a re-visit in the pipe-line. link |
Ctour 15.03.2015 15:28 |
moonie wrote: Very good indeed Bohardy.. Don't pay any attention to that chump..You suck as well |
ludwigs 15.03.2015 15:33 |
What's your beef Ctour?? |
BETA215 15.03.2015 15:35 |
^ Don't pay him attention. He is Jefffabiano or Mercuryman12. |
Ctour 15.03.2015 15:36 |
BETA215 wrote: ^ Don't pay him attention. He is Jefffabiano or Mercuryman12.No you shall pay me attention |
hobbit in Rhye 15.03.2015 15:37 |
ludwigs your demo is really interesting too :) |
ludwigs 15.03.2015 15:41 |
I will offer it up when I get my disc with the 'session' on it-I put to disc then deleted from my laptop. This was just a quickly put together p.o.s. many years ago. |
Ctour 15.03.2015 15:42 |
ludwigs wrote: I will offer it up when I get my disc with the 'session' on it-I put to disc then deleted from my laptop. This was just a quickly put together p.o.s. many years ago.Yours sucks as well |
ludwigs 15.03.2015 15:55 |
|
Ctour 15.03.2015 15:56 |
ludwigs wrote: I'm not professing it's up to a decent level yet. If you could have the ability to read and 'digest' what I put,,,,,,It's purely a demo from many many, years ago. My guessing is you are simply trolling (in the most basic of ways) so I'll not get at all bothered with your waffle. Does it suck as well as your sister on your dad? |
ludwigs 15.03.2015 15:58 |
|
Ctour 15.03.2015 15:59 |
ludwigs wrote: Dad and sis....or your mum and you? |
ludwigs 15.03.2015 16:00 |
. |
Ctour 15.03.2015 16:01 |
ludwigs wrote: ooh....get her. I'm so offended. Pah, get a job keyboard hero. |
ludwigs 15.03.2015 16:04 |
^^^ Posts removed now Ctour has gone |
BETA215 15.03.2015 16:04 |
ludwigs, STOP! Don't commit the same mistake I did. STOP! |
Ctour 15.03.2015 16:06 |
BETA215 wrote: ludwigs, STOP! Don't commit the same mistake I did. STOP! |
cmsdrums 15.03.2015 16:06 |
Great work - amazing to hear how 'classical' sounding the intro is; reminiscent of some of the 'Barcelona' stuf such as 'The Fallen Priest' |
ludwigs 15.03.2015 16:09 |
BETA215 wrote: ludwigs, STOP! Don't commit the same mistake I did. STOP!Already realised now BETA thanks. He is just a cretin. |
MrFunster 15.03.2015 16:32 |
Great piano track, thank you very much....love it ! |
Sebastian 15.03.2015 17:17 |
Wonderful indeed. |
tomchristie22 16.03.2015 04:58 |
Keep these coming! Really nice just to listen to, and also to better understand the piano parts which are sometimes hard to single out. |
Vocal harmony 16.03.2015 07:17 |
Really enjoyed that. Nice playing |
bootLuca 16.03.2015 08:33 |
Bohardy wrote: Following on from the MOTBQ piano thread, here's my version of In The Lap Of The Gods, as promised.Great version! Can I ask you the piano transcription?also for the Black Queen if possible... ;) |
MercurialFreddie 16.03.2015 10:30 |
Me too Bohardy ! Pretty please.... |
Bohardy 16.03.2015 15:07 |
Here's when I originally did and posted the score back in 2004: http://www.queenconcerts.com/queenzone/382719.html I mention again there the C minor section where it's impossible to hear exactly what's played. For this recording, I played something slightly different to what's on the score, and I'm confident my newer version is closer to what Fred plays. I never transcribed the rest of the song, and don't have any plans to I'm afraid. It's the same case for MOTBQ unfortunately. Sorry. |
Bohardy 16.03.2015 15:08 |
Oh, and thanks for the positive and kind comments folks. Much appreciated. I think next up will be The Fairy Feller's Master Stroke. |
hobbit in Rhye 16.03.2015 15:16 |
Bohardy wrote: Oh, and thanks for the positive and kind comments folks. Much appreciated. I think next up will be The Fairy Feller's Master Stroke.Great. We're to a treat recently. Thank you^^ Just curious, did it lose a little bit of magic to you after you transcribed it, as some other member mentioned? |
Bohardy 16.03.2015 18:08 |
hobbit-in-Rhye wrote:Bohardy wrote: Oh, and thanks for the positive and kind comments folks. Much appreciated. I think next up will be The Fairy Feller's Master Stroke.Great. We're to a treat recently. Thank you^^ Just curious, did it lose a little bit of magic to you after you transcribed it, as some other member mentioned? |
Bohardy 16.03.2015 18:08 |
* Duplicate cock-up of an intended post. This board sucks. * |
Bohardy 16.03.2015 18:09 |
Ludwigs - awesome work from you, as ever. Shame the start's missing. Knowing what you can do, I very much look forward to hearing you revisit this. If it was that good then, it would be incredible now.
And yep, if you want to use my piano part, or whatever it is you're suggesting, I'm more than happy. Would be cool to collaborate in some way.
hobbit-in-Rhye wrote:Hi Hobbit. The answer is, not really. It's true that there's a unique pleasure (or more accurately, a sense of excited anticipation) for me when I like a piece of music and I don't know (yet) exactly what is going on with it (actually, even if I don't like the piece of music), in terms of the harmonies, chords, or rhythms used. But it doesn't really happen that often for me with most music, as I can generally instantly work it out in my head.Bohardy wrote: Oh, and thanks for the positive and kind comments folks. Much appreciated. I think next up will be The Fairy Feller's Master Stroke.Great. We're to a treat recently. Thank you^^ Just curious, did it lose a little bit of magic to you after you transcribed it, as some other member mentioned? The excited anticipation comes from the fact that I know I will unlock the mysteries of the music if I just sit down at the piano for 5 minutes. And that's a really fun experience for me. But it doesn't ruin the mystique. Generally the songs I need to figure out have so much depth to them that they can withstand any diminishment of mystique. And those that have less depth don't need to be figured out, so aren't altered either way. I do sometimes long for the days when I was wowed and mystified by a chord progression that for me now seems wholly unexceptional. Often my mother will remark on some gorgeous chord in a piece of classical music, and I'll say "it's just a minor 9th" or "it's only a 13th chor" or something like that. But once upon a time, I was the same as her, being moved and awed by this exotic chord that I knew was something other than a standard triad, but I didn't know what. Anyway, I'm not sure if that makes much sense, or if it's relevant. But hopefully it's answered your question! |
hobbit in Rhye 16.03.2015 18:32 |
^That makes perfecly sense, thank you Bohardy^^ Often after I manage to sing a song, that song would lose a little bit of mystic to me. Glad that's not your case. |
Sebastian 17.03.2015 06:17 |
It's a bit like Keats telling Newton he was ruining the rainbow by unweaving it and Dawkins writing a book many many many years later making the case for the opposite: understanding how it works enhances your fascination for it, rather than diminishing it. |
Mr.Mouth 17.03.2015 10:36 |
Bohardy thats awesome played. You are great. Steinway&Sons + Freddie Mercury are so magical that he make his own tehnique and sound with his unique style while hand playing.Allways admire Freddies pianno style playing sou for me you got some balls play that song. Great work..keep it up friend ;) |
scollins 17.03.2015 12:56 |
class bud that is very well done :) great |
dysan 17.03.2015 14:43 |
Excellent work about Mr BoMercury :) |
hobbit in Rhye 17.03.2015 16:27 |
Sebastian wrote: It's a bit like Keats telling Newton he was ruining the rainbow by unweaving it and Dawkins writing a book many many many years later making the case for the opposite: understanding how it works enhances your fascination for it, rather than diminishing it.It didn't "diminish" the track for me. Just gone the mystical aurora around something we don't know. I still like it, or even like it more. It's just another thing. Also, those examples of yours are from science, which is very different from what we're talking here. Understanding some theorems doesn't make the theorem's proof any less challenging, but art is more subjective. Having my voice ruining that song 10 times per day can certainly break some rainbow (I spoke and am speaking from purely personal experience). |
Sebastian 18.03.2015 14:03 |
Except that 'science' is also 'art' and 'art' is also 'science', which is in no small part what Dawkins (and many others) had been saying for ages. |
hobbit in Rhye 18.03.2015 16:02 |
Sebastian wrote: Except that 'science' is also 'art' and 'art' is also 'science', which is in no small part what Dawkins (and many others) had been saying for ages.The "is" above is rather rhetoric, isn't it? Some aspects of science belong to art and vice versa, but logically they are 2 different objects so they surely possede different traits. Art is subjected to a more personal interpretation. Science has more rules and standards - once you accept Euclid's axioms then the sum of a triangle's three angles is no way less than 180 degrees. You can make up your own axioms but they will struggle more to be accepted than a new kind of music will. People may love Queen or hate Queen, life still goes on. But you will hardly going anywhere in geometry if you don't go through Euclid first. So again, my previous post is only my individual interpretation about a song, no way I stated it as an universal truth. If Bohardy and you are still intrigued by the songs that you know inside out, then very good, very good indeed my friends. |
ludwigs 18.03.2015 16:37 |
I have always been fascinated with isolating parts and writing them down. I know lots of folk can't do this and I understand that there are many, many people who don't hear stuff that say, for example, people that have the ability to transcribe can. That's not in any way a bad thing. I can't do lots of stuff and appreciate others to highlight things that I don't have a clue about. There have been many instances of revelation accordingly. If anything - once I have taken apart stuff it makes it more enjoyable to me cause each time I re-listen to the songs/pieces etc I now hear parts that weren't obvious to me before in my musical enjoyment. In a strange way, I also wonder why others don't hear that? But.....as mentioned earlier, I know that others do stuff that I can't fathom so it's a similar thing I guess - If you see my point? |
Oscar J 18.03.2015 18:10 |
Interesting post hobbit-in-Rhye! |
The Real Wizard 18.03.2015 22:42 |
Sebastian wrote: It's a bit like Keats telling Newton he was ruining the rainbow by unweaving it and Dawkins writing a book many many many years later making the case for the opposite: understanding how it works enhances your fascination for it, rather than diminishing it. hobbit-in-Rhye wrote:Excellent dialogue here.Sebastian wrote: Except that 'science' is also 'art' and 'art' is also 'science', which is in no small part what Dawkins (and many others) had been saying for ages.The "is" above is rather rhetoric, isn't it? Some aspects of science belong to art and vice versa, but logically they are 2 different objects so they surely possede different traits. Art is subjected to a more personal interpretation. Science has more rules and standards - once you accept Euclid's axioms then the sum of a triangle's three angles is no way less than 180 degrees. You can make up your own axioms but they will struggle more to be accepted than a new kind of music will. People may love Queen or hate Queen, life still goes on. But you will hardly going anywhere in geometry if you don't go through Euclid first. So again, my previous post is only my individual interpretation about a song, no way I stated it as an universal truth. If Bohardy and you are still intrigued by the songs that you know inside out, then very good, very good indeed my friends. |
thomasquinn 32989 19.03.2015 11:06 |
Sebastian wrote: Except that 'science' is also 'art' and 'art' is also 'science', which is in no small part what Dawkins (and many others) had been saying for ages. That is close to the truth, but I would argue that in actuality things are subtly but essentially different: science and art are two separate, distinct things, but they never occur in their pure forms. Science is a process driven by an element of artistic creativity to some extent, and you can't create art without the techniques and theories that you could argue are of a scientific nature. The two blend, in varying proportions, but they are still separate, to some extent identifiable concepts. What Richard Dawkins fails to realize is that, while understanding a rainbow doesn't negate the enjoyment of its beauty, it does *change* the way in which this is enjoyed. The dichotomy is not between science and art, but between science and magic, science resulting in the enjoyment of knowing how something works, and magic resulting in the enjoyment of not understanding the workings/causes/nature of something. Both can be forms of beauty and both can result in profound art, but they are markedly different. As such, there has always been a distinction in art between (and an alternating successing in stylistic movements of) rationalism/naturalism and spiritualism (and mysticism)/romanticism. |
thomasquinn 32989 19.03.2015 11:16 |
hobbit-in-Rhye wrote:Sebastian wrote: Except that 'science' is also 'art' and 'art' is also 'science', which is in no small part what Dawkins (and many others) had been saying for ages.The "is" above is rather rhetoric, isn't it? Some aspects of science belong to art and vice versa, but logically they are 2 different objects so they surely possede different traits. Art is subjected to a more personal interpretation. Science has more rules and standards - once you accept Euclid's axioms then the sum of a triangle's three angles is no way less than 180 degrees. You can make up your own axioms but they will struggle more to be accepted than a new kind of music will. People may love Queen or hate Queen, life still goes on. But you will hardly going anywhere in geometry if you don't go through Euclid first. So again, my previous post is only my individual interpretation about a song, no way I stated it as an universal truth. If Bohardy and you are still intrigued by the songs that you know inside out, then very good, very good indeed my friends. You are essentially arguing for a distinction between philosophical objectivism (science) and philosophical subjectivism (art). While that is an interesting and quite defensible notion, I would point out that it has been debated (and found imperfect) numerous times throughout art history: this has been one of the most fundamental discussions in the field of aesthetics since the late 18th century. The example you give does not, in my opinion, do justice to the nature of art or science. In the world of physics, hard science, many different views of the world and the universe coexist and contend with one another. There are certain mathematical notions that are universally accepted, but nothing is beyond debate, providing you can back up the debate in a form acceptable to scientific discourse. There are vast amounts of subjective reasoning involved in deciding (consciously or unconsciously) how to view a certain scientific concept. Take the dual nature of the photon (the particle that makes up light): it is both a wave and a particle, but what that means in practical terms depends on what scientific model of the universe you choose to adopt. As for art - radically new artistic movements have, throughout history, been met with the same kind of hostility on the same scale as paradigm-shifting scientific movements, and the individual renegade artists faces essentially the same problems in gaining acceptance that the renegade physicist does. You might find the institutional theory of art interesting in this respect. There is such a thing as non-Euclidian geometry, by the way. |
hobbit in Rhye 22.03.2015 14:06 |
Thank you for the thoughtful posts, thomasquinn. I have been on a trip for several days so couldn't reply you sooner. You said that my examples didn't do justice to the distinction between art and science. Which examples would you choose then? I know about the non-Euclidian geometry, but it's also another axiom-based branch. Everything inside it must be strict. It has struggled long and harder than any kind of art to be accepted. For a new music to be popular, it only needs to prevail to people's personal taste, which I repeated again and again above. The totally-unexpected success of Nirvana has pushed Grunge to its peak, while puzzled critics: just because it is the sound that the generation X craved, no more no less. Meanwhile for a new science to be baptised, it need to build a whole universe within: axioms that don't clash, theorems that are abundant enough, and results that fit into the reality. It may have its confusing moments (photon's dual nature as you mentioned, Godel's incompleteness theorems, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle,...) but even its uncertainty has to be formulized. Don't observe a quantum system, she is shy! I don't know about the debate in 18th century that you spoke of, maybe everything I said has been told (or negated) a thousand times. Doesn't make it a closed debate though, I think this kind of debate can't be closed off. I'm afraid I can't go any further, I don't even know half of the philosophy terms in your post. I don't know which came first, the egg or the chicken, I just eat them both ^^ To bring the topic back to Queen, they have some axioms for their music to begin with: 1) We didn't take ourselves too seriously 2) Deafen and blind 'em (the audience) in the 1st ten minutes 3) We never should repeat ourselves Everything else came as consequences ^^ |
Bohardy 29.03.2015 11:02 |
As Dysan requested the intro section in WAV on the FFMS thread, here it is. |
dysan 05.06.2018 19:50 |
I just wanted to let Bohardy know that I still listen to these regularly. Incredible. |
Bohardy 06.06.2018 06:52 |
Love you too Dysan! xxxx |
dysan 08.05.2019 17:57 |
2019 update: Still listening to them! |
mika251 08.05.2019 19:26 |
After reading the whole discussion I would love to hear it too but the file isn't available anymore. Could someone please re-upload the zip file? Thank you very much in advance. |
Chief Mouse 08.05.2019 20:05 |
mika251 wrote: After reading the whole discussion I would love to hear it too but the file isn't available anymore. Could someone please re-upload the zip file? Thank you very much in advance. |
mika251 08.05.2019 21:59 |
Wonderful. Thanks a lot! |