| 7cees 05.01.2017 03:56 |
Recently I paid a visit to the Queen Studio Experience and Montreux, both of which are highly recommended. Amongst the exhibits are two handwritten tracklistings for the Jazz album, hopefully attached. One of the tracks listed is called "Don't Say No" and missing is "In only Seven Days". Are they one and the same? Or is Don't Say No a track I have yet to discover...?? Anybody any ideas? |
| 7cees 05.01.2017 03:59 |
And another Picture.... |
| Martin Packer 05.01.2017 04:03 |
It also looks like either one or both of Tracks 4 and 5 were considered for dropping. And the doodles... :-) |
| Cruella de Vil 05.01.2017 04:19 |
Maybe it was a working title for Seven Days? Hmmm |
| Rami 05.01.2017 04:38 |
interesting, thanks! |
| al bundy 05.01.2017 05:47 |
a Billy Squier song? link |
| matt z 05.01.2017 08:50 |
oh(!) soo sad. ... ... don't say no. (??) haha. Thanks for the post, I find it encouraging that Freddie doodled scribbles like I sometimes do. Next time I see John Deacon, I'll ask him. *After I ask him about giving me one of his basses; it doesn't have to be the Fender, it could be the Buzzard bass from FBF...I don't mind ;-) [Btw: I have never met John Deacon and probably will never, unless he attends films revivals in Hollywood] Might be a valid question for Brian on his soapbox |
| Sebastian 05.01.2017 13:11 |
I wish there were more research and stuff about the 'Jazz' era. I really love the album. Unfortunately, it seems they disowned it as soon as it was released, and on the 'Days of Our Lives' doco they devoted more time to talk about the infamous launch party than to the album itself. |
| dysan 06.01.2017 02:25 |
Same. I do like these alternate running order - always fascinating and more often than not seem superior to the final one. I think we can assume 'Don't Say No' IS 'In Only 7 Days'. Perhaps with a Jealousy style missing bass drum? |
| Martin Packer 06.01.2017 03:12 |
@Sebastian tell us more about them disowning Jazz. That's a new one on me - but that doesn't mean MUCH. :-) |
| 7cees 06.01.2017 03:27 |
Whilst I agree that Don't say no probably is In only seven days this view is complicated by the original handwritten lyrics for the latter which clearly indicate the title of the song as (in only) Seven Days. So there are a number of possibilities: 1) They are the same 2) They are not 3) IOSD was not at first considered for the Jazz album... Hmmmm |
| Barry Durex 06.01.2017 04:22 |
Martin Packer wrote: It also looks like either one or both of Tracks 4 and 5 were considered for dropping.Or possibly they were just contemplating a different placing in the running order? |
| Togg 06.01.2017 05:36 |
Sebastian wrote: I wish there were more research and stuff about the 'Jazz' era. I really love the album. Unfortunately, it seems they disowned it as soon as it was released, and on the 'Days of Our Lives' doco they devoted more time to talk about the infamous launch party than to the album itself.At the time it was very hard to find anything much about the album from the band, it was very annoying and closely followed by Live Killers another album release that seemed to go out without much of a fanfare. Unlike The Game which seemed to be being PR'd to death at the time I love/loved Jazz and always wanted to know more about the recording |
| Martin Packer 06.01.2017 05:45 |
One difference between Jazz / Live Killers and The Game was they were in transition to being self-managed at that time, with Jim Beach playing an increasing role. Maybe he / they become more "muscular" with the record companies. |
| Holly2003 06.01.2017 06:08 |
I think they were all 'snow blind' back then, which is probably why they don't remember much about it. |
| splicksplack 06.01.2017 06:14 |
Another odd thing about Jazz is that it was the first album since Queen that didn't include the lyrics. Especially as there was so much room on one side of the inner sleeve or the back of the bicycle race poster. A few weeks after release the fan club did send out a poster with the lyrics on the reverse. They were printed in white on a black background and in the same typeface as the rest of the album inner sleeve, which makes me think they were typeset ready for use but a decision was then made not to include them on the cover. I've only found a pic of the poster side. |
| scottmax 06.01.2017 11:22 |
Holly2003 wrote: I think they were all 'snow blind' back then, which is probably why they don't remember much about it.All of them? Haha Brian doesn't come across as the mi da bloke that'd partake in hoovering up copious amounts of Columbian marching powder! |
| The Real Wizard 06.01.2017 17:45 |
Holly2003 wrote: I think they were all 'snow blind' back then, which is probably why they don't remember much about it.Almost certainly a couple of them, but not all of them... Excellent pics here !! I wish there were more answers, but clearly there are reasons why there aren't. No band protects their history and the creative process this tightly unless it's a conscious choice to. |
| IanR 07.01.2017 02:09 |
In a 2002 article for Record Collector, Greg Brooks stated that 'Don't Say No' was a working title. |
| IanR 07.01.2017 02:11 |
link |
| dysan 07.01.2017 02:24 |
So it's probably not then. |
| The Real Wizard 07.01.2017 14:58 |
IanR wrote: In a 2002 article for Record Collector, Greg Brooks stated that 'Don't Say No' was a working title.Right - but is this based on listening to tapes, or simply seeing the same piece of paper we just looked at? |
| strangefrontier 08.01.2017 08:51 |
The US Jazz press kit claims 4/5 tracks were discarded and that they could of easily have put out a double album of material. |
| Vocal harmony 08.01.2017 10:41 |
Sebastian wrote: I wish there were more research and stuff about the 'Jazz' era. I really love the album. Unfortunately, it seems they disowned it as soon as it was released, and on the 'Days of Our Lives' doco they devoted more time to talk about the infamous launch party than to the album itself.Agreed, I've always liked the album. I wonder, and this is just speculation, if they weren't happy with Baker's production. They obviously chose to work with him again but only on this album. Their is a harshness and brittleness to the sound, compared to past albums. Also did the album take longer then planned, the release date falling two weeks into the US tour to promote it. I would assume that the emphasis at that point would be on the live dates and new production. The launch party has become a major part of Queen's history as a band who over did everything. The stories attached to the party have gone down in Queen folklore as being more important then the reason for the party. As an album I think it was the end of the overblown 70's production and so much of what had become Queen trade marks. The album had everything that fans would have expected at that point. The next time they'd go into a studio, in the late 70's would be with Mack and the result as we know was very different. |
| mooghead 08.01.2017 11:34 |
I was disappointed when I first heard it and still am a little bit. Queen were touring so much at the time that it was rushed and contained filler and the production is bad. |
| Oscar J 08.01.2017 12:53 |
Yeah, some of the songs on there would be much more listenable if the snare didn't sound like it was played through a small radio for example. One thing the album misses is an "epic". Queen had Liar, to name one. Queen II - MOTBQ. SHA - ITLOTG and Brighton Rock ANATO - BR and Prophet's Song. ADATR - White Man and STL. NOTW - It's Late. Jazz had nothing over four minutes or so, and the most complex song is probably the light hearted Bicycle Race. It lacks any sort of pinnacle, and is just a bunch of songs scrambled together. And from that point on they ceased making those big songs until Innuendo. |
| Sebastian 08.01.2017 13:01 |
'Who Wants to Live Forever' clocks at 5.15 (making it longer than 'White Man', 'Brighton Rock', 'Lap of the Gods' and 'Somebody to Love') and it's got orchestration. 'Was It All Worth It' is another pre-Innuendo epic. |
| dysan 08.01.2017 13:38 |
I think it benefits from being 'shorter' songs. My only quibbles are Jealousy and IO7D which are a bit of a drag. Probably their most ridiculous album. |
| Saint Jiub 08.01.2017 13:46 |
Radio Ga Ga clocks in at 5:44 which makes it 97% as epic as Bo Rhap which clocks in at 5:55 ... Unfortunately, Bo Rhap does not have synths. |
| Oscar J 08.01.2017 14:52 |
Sebastian wrote: 'Who Wants to Live Forever' clocks at 5.15 (making it longer than 'White Man', 'Brighton Rock', 'Lap of the Gods' and 'Somebody to Love') and it's got orchestration. 'Was It All Worth It' is another pre-Innuendo epic. Good point. But they are far in between and not as good. :) |
| mooghead 08.01.2017 16:04 |
An analogy that could be made is that Jazz has a 'days of the week' song in In Only Seven Days. Compare it to the 'days of the week' song on A Night At The Opera - Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon, no comparison really. In fact In Only Seven Days is probably in my 3 least favourite Queen songs. Leaving Home Ain't Easy is almost as bad. |
| Oscar J 08.01.2017 17:29 |
Leaving Home Ain't Easy is as pleasant as a dental appointment. |
| mike hunt 08.01.2017 18:11 |
I like Jazz, It was a transition album for them. Had more filler than the usual 70's Queen album. Production wasn't so great either. Dispite it all, I still like the album. So many good songs like Mustapha, Dead on time, Dreamers Ball and the hits. Jealousy is another good one. Maybe the band didn't like it at the time because it wasn't as solid as the first 6 albums.. It's better than any 80's album they did, aside from The Game, and that's even debatable. |
| waunakonor 08.01.2017 23:54 |
Jazz is their weakest '70s album overall, largely because of the production, but there are also a couple really weak songs that wouldn't have made it on a previous album. It's still mostly killer though. But yeah, Leaving Home Ain't Easy is weird. I usually love Brian's depressed sentimental ballads, but that one just lays it on really heavy and there't not enough musical interest there to justify it. |
| Martin Packer 09.01.2017 02:56 |
I think it suffered from having to have more John and Roger tracks, though that's not entirely new. I just suspect a "fairness" thing was kicking in, lowering the bar. |
| dysan 09.01.2017 03:29 |
I think they basically hadn't a clue what to do by then. Which is usually the most interesting period for any band. I don't get the production problems with it. |
| Togg 09.01.2017 05:21 |
I love the production of the album, much more than the production of NOTW which just sounds muddy in comparison. I think at the time studios were getting more controlled and precise in there recording techniques and maybe RTB was chasing a curve in the industry that was slowly heading towards the CD era, after all if you are a creative person you dont do teh same thing over and over so, he would have tried to move them forward from the ANATO days to get a more modern sound. I've always loved the album its one of my favs, but was always disappointed by the Game and the Mack era of production |
| TomP63 09.01.2017 05:57 |
Togg, disappointed by The Game, in what way may I ask? I know it all comes down to personal taste, but I think The Game is propably the best 80s album the band made. For my taste I had to wait until Innuendo for an outstanding album. Between The Game and Innuendo the albums where a bit below par. The Works has a few highlights, the same goes for Magic and The Miracle, but Innuendo is in my humble opinion a top of the bill album. Tom |
| mike hunt 09.01.2017 08:55 |
Yea, I agree Tom! Jazz, The Game were the best until Innuendo. Innuendo was classic, that album would have been huge if Queen were able to tour in support of the album. Also, the choice of singles In America hurt. The record company didn't want the title track as the first single because they thought it was to long. Queen should have fought that, I remember a buzz around the band when the radio played that song. The choice of headlong was odd, a decent B level Rock song. The Show Must Go On was the other obvious choice for first single. It was good they finished on a high note after so many uneven albums in the 80's. |
| mike hunt 09.01.2017 09:02 |
Martin Packer wrote: I think it suffered from having to have more John and Roger tracks, though that's not entirely new. I just suspect a "fairness" thing was kicking in, lowering the bar.That fairness thing always hurt their albums. Queen 2 for example. Loser in the end had no place on that album, but they needed to get a roger song in there. See what a fool I been, the way they played it live was a much better song. In the studio they could have Queenized it a bit more. The studio version sounds like Zep. |
| Biggus Dickus 09.01.2017 09:08 |
The snare drum sound on Jazz is one of the worst I've heard. |
| waunakonor 09.01.2017 17:43 |
Martin Packer wrote: I think it suffered from having to have more John and Roger tracks, though that's not entirely new. I just suspect a "fairness" thing was kicking in, lowering the bar.Nah, it's not just that Roger and John had more songs. The Game has the highest concentration of Roger and John songs (2 apiece, whereas Freddie and Brian only had 3 apiece) and IMO Another One Bites the Dust, Need Your Loving Tonight, Rock It and Coming Soon are all excellent. Also Roger and John's songs are the two best tracks on A Day at the Races. Their songs were just weaker than normal on Jazz (with the exception of More of That Jazz which I love). Leaving Home Ain't Easy is the worst song on the album anyway. mike hunt wrote: That fairness thing always hurt their albums. Queen 2 for example. Loser in the end had no place on that album, but they needed to get a roger song in there. See what a fool I been, the way they played it live was a much better song. In the studio they could have Queenized it a bit more. The studio version sounds like Zep.Loser is in the top 2 worst songs on the album and it's still great. Such a fun, funky track. Queen don't have another song that's at all like it. And Fool isn't on Queen II; it was just a B-Side for Seven Seas. |
| dysan 10.01.2017 01:43 |
I think he was suggesting to swap out LITE and SWAFIB. I can't believe Fun It has dodged a bullet in this thread. |
| Martin Packer 10.01.2017 02:39 |
I think by the time of The Game Roger's and John's writing had come along somewhat. |
| waunakonor 10.01.2017 09:12 |
dysan wrote: I think he was suggesting to swap out LITE and SWAFIB. I can't believe Fun It has dodged a bullet in this thread.You're right, I misread. That's my bad. Martin Packer wrote: I think by the time of The Game Roger's and John's writing had come along somewhat.Nah, their songwriting was good overall beforehand. |
| Sebastian 10.01.2017 09:19 |
I suppose, in the grand scheme of things, letting Rog have his silly little teenage rebel song on the album was a small price to pay for having him at all. What he did on 'Queen II' as a performer (both drumming and singing) was nothing short of extraordinary. |
| Sebastian 10.01.2017 09:19 |
. |
| mike hunt 10.01.2017 15:21 |
Sebastian wrote: I suppose, in the grand scheme of things, letting Rog have his silly little teenage rebel song on the album was a small price to pay for having him at all. What he did on 'Queen II' as a performer (both drumming and singing) was nothing short of extraordinary.Can't disagree with that |
| mike hunt 10.01.2017 15:25 |
dysan wrote: I think he was suggesting to swap out LITE and SWAFIB. I can't believe Fun It has dodged a bullet in this thread.Fun it is one of my least favorite songs by Roger. Don't like either of his songs on Jazz. Am I the only one here who likes leaving home ain't easy? Not on par with Brians best, but I still like it. |
| Sebastian 10.01.2017 16:53 |
I love it. Beautiful melody, great singing, interesting chord progressions. It's really underrated. |
| mooghead 11.01.2017 01:22 |
NE-CE-SS-AR-IL-Y TH-E ON-LY WA-Y.... Horrible. |
| cmi 11.01.2017 02:44 |
Leaving Home Ain't NECESSARY LEAVE The Only Way BTW, very good song. |
| ludwigs 11.01.2017 03:05 |
I'd always understood it to be as Moog mentioned. "Leaving home ain't necessarily the only way" |
| Martin Packer 11.01.2017 03:45 |
I like both of Roger's songs on Jazz - including the snippets of other songs in MOTJ. Also I like LITE - though its resonance has changed as I've grown from a teenager to an old(ish) man with a teenaged daughter in the house. :-) |
| cmi 11.01.2017 03:56 |
ludwigs wrote: I'd always understood it to be as Moog mentioned. "Leaving home ain't necessarily the only way"Now I understand the meaning of this phrase and grammaticaly "Leaving home ain't necessarily the only way" is the most correct indeed. |
| Chopin1995 11.01.2017 04:16 |
Sebastian wrote: I love it. Beautiful melody, great singing, interesting chord progressions. It's really underrated.I agree with Sebastian 100% |
| dysan 11.01.2017 04:19 |
I liked LHAE when I was little. One of the Queen songs that was about growing up that I wasn't too sure I understood. Dislike All Dead All Dead with a passion. I will always listen and love Rogers songs. Good party music when you wanna dance like you're 12 again. Fun It though. Shhhheeesh. |
| Togg 11.01.2017 08:03 |
I rather like fun it, I like the sentiment and used to quote is a lot back in the day... |
| Oscar J 11.01.2017 08:05 |
I think Brian's singing on LHAE is awful, one of his most weak and whiny deliveries ever. The song might have worked with good production and a decent singer. Roger certainly had his moments. His output from Tenement Funster to Drowse is pretty good and has a sense of humour it. Some decent stuff on The Game as well, and of course TDOOL. As Sebastian points out, some of his lesser songs was a small price to pay for having one of rock music's most insane falsettos. His harmonies are absolutely irreplaceable. |
| Sebastian 11.01.2017 10:28 |
It's not just his falsetto although that's obviously exceptional - but also his magnificent head voice, his raspiness, his timbre either high or low ... and his underrated work as a drummer and all-round percussionist. |
| MercurialFreddie 11.01.2017 12:23 |
strangefrontier wrote: The US Jazz press kit claims 4/5 tracks were discarded and that they could of easily have put out a double album of material.This is interesting! So what happened to the discarded material ? |
| Oscar J 11.01.2017 12:46 |
Sebastian wrote: It's not just his falsetto although that's obviously exceptional - but also his magnificent head voice, his raspiness, his timbre either high or low ... and his underrated work as a drummer and all-round percussionist. Yup. |
| AlbaNo1 11.01.2017 14:56 |
waunakonor wrote: Jazz is their weakest '70s album overall, largely because of the production, but there are also a couple really weak songs that wouldn't have made it on a previous album. It's still mostly killer though. But yeah, Leaving Home Ain't Easy is weird. I usually love Brian's depressed sentimental ballads, but that one just lays it on really heavy and there't not enough musical interest there to justify it.I love that song. It's actually one of the few Queen songs that could pass for "singer songwriter" territory. It sounds very personal , not overly sentimental or emotionally overblown. Anyone who has left home in the way implied should be able to relate to it. |
| mike hunt 11.01.2017 16:25 |
Not sure what's weird about leaving Home, it's a beautiful ballad. Roger, I like his voice, and in his 70's prime was an excellent Drummer, not a Neil Pert but still great. His songs as a lead vocalist was a mixed bag for me. Modern times, tenament funster were great. I'm love with my car and fight from the Inside were also good. Drowse was decent, but was my least favorite on Races. Prime Jive was good, but my favorite part was the intro sung by freddie and musically it was good. Would've been great if Freddie sang the full song IMO. Fun it, more of that jazz and loser in the end I never liked. |
| Sebastian 11.01.2017 18:32 |
They were a bit scatty indeed. I think even Rog admitted they weren't great. He was a really capable songwriter when he applied himself, but sometimes it was more like he'd just offer fillers in order to have something to sing and/or some royalties. |
| dysan 12.01.2017 01:35 |
Wasn't The Game supposed to have been a double too? I guess it's the standard thing for a band to record more songs than they can fit on an album and the PR mentions them which becomes 'it could've been a double!' |
| waunakonor 12.01.2017 02:23 |
dysan wrote: Dislike All Dead All Dead with a passion.Whaaaaat? Why? |
| cmi 12.01.2017 02:32 |
dysan wrote: Wasn't The Game supposed to have been a double too? I guess it's the standard thing for a band to record more songs than they can fit on an album and the PR mentions them which becomes 'it could've been a double!'If it's true, it's very strange that in the end it was the shortest proper Queen album... |
| Oscar J 12.01.2017 07:07 |
They should have put "Sandbox" in there. Sexiest piano riff evah. :D |
| mike hunt 12.01.2017 08:05 |
waunakonor wrote:Great song, but we all have different taste. I don't agree with the rumor The Game was originally a double album. It's one of the shortest albums they did. I think pretty highly of The album, but the 2nd side had some weaker moments, and was so short I have a hard time believing they had enough strong material for a double albumdysan wrote: Dislike All Dead All Dead with a passion.Whaaaaat? Why? |
| tomchristie22 12.01.2017 09:09 |
Perhaps the other disc's worth was all kinda shite material, hence it being dropped. Simple but logical. |
| Sebastian 12.01.2017 10:52 |
So far, all of the so-called evidence for a planned double-album has come from people who weren't there, and none of the eye witnesses or people involved with the project (the band, the engineer, the technicians) has ever confirmed - to my knowledge- said rumour. So an unsubstatiated rumour it remains to me... should sound evidence ever come to my attention claiming the contrary, I'll be happy to stand corrected, but until then, I remain sceptical. |
| dysan 12.01.2017 13:42 |
All Dead All Dead: Never liked it - one of those songs that in my 30 plus years of listening to NOTW I've never even had a phase of liking it. I think the morbid wintery boring intro, the morbid wintery boring lyrics and the overall morbid wintery boring sound and feel just don't appeal. Straight after SHA too. Hard to follow what was, from almost my first listen, my favourite Queen song. I remember writing an essay about it at school aged 9. |
| Oscar J 12.01.2017 13:56 |
SHA is your favourite song, and you dislike All Dead? This is seriously controversial stuff! :) All Dead is one of the rare numbers where Brian's voice really works for me. He doesn't have to sing loud (that's where his voice becomes shrill and nasal) and his slightly wobbly glissandos work just fine in a sad song like this. Same with Mother Love - almost sounds like he's on the verge of crying. |
| mike hunt 12.01.2017 15:04 |
I love all Dead and everything, but how is it controversial to like SHA better? At least SHA was semi popular in it's time, I actually talked with a few casual fans that mention SHA as one their favorites for it's high energy. Not my personal favorite, but it's a pretty kick ass song. |
| Oscar J 12.01.2017 15:11 |
Yeah but favourite Queen song is an unusually high rank for it I think. |
| dysan 12.01.2017 15:44 |
I also rate Cool Cat quite highly so what do I know :) |
| mike hunt 12.01.2017 16:01 |
Hot Space hasn't aged well for me, but I do like cool Cat and Back Chat. Cool Cat, his voice is at it's best. Sheer heart attack as a favorite Queen song is not nearly as strange as someone saying Drowse is the best song on A Day At The Races, like someone said on this thread. That one had me scratching my head. |
| Saint Jiub 12.01.2017 19:34 |
dysan wrote: I also rate Cool Cat quite highly so what do I know :) You "know" quite a bit more than I ... My Queen song opinions probably tend to be much more blasphemous ... My "boring" songs at the moment (2 per album): Son and Daughter & My Fairy King, Father to Son & White Queen (album version), She Makes Me & Now I'm Here, Sweet Lady & You're My Best Friend, Long Away & Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy, We Are the Champions & Fight from the Inside, Jealousy & More of That Jazz, Save Me & Play the Game, Arboria & In the Death Cell, Back Chat & Life Is Real, Tear It Up & Man on the Prowl, One Year of Love & Princes of the Universe, Scandal & My Baby Does Me, All God's People & The Show Must Go On, and My Life Has Been Saved & Too Much Love Will Kill You. My "special" songs at the moment (2 per album): The Night Comes Down & Liar, The Fairy Feller Masterstroke & March of the Black Queen, Brighton Rock & Bring Back That Leroy Brown, Good Company & Bohemian Rhapsody, The Millionaire Waltz & Teo Torriate, Who Needs You & Spread Your Wings (BBC version), Dreamer's Ball & In Only 7 Days, Don't Try Suicide & Another One Bites the Dust, Football Fight & The Hero, Action This Day & Put Out the Fire, Hammer to Fall & Keep Passing the Open Windows, Pain Is So Close to Pleasure & A Kind of Magic (12" version), Breakthru & Rain Must Fall, These Are the Days of Our Lives & I Can't Live with You, and Made in Heaven & It's a Beautiful Day (Reprise). |
| tomchristie22 12.01.2017 22:00 |
I struggle to like Sheer Heart Attack hugely just because it's so un-Queen. Modern Times Rock and Roll is in a similar vein, but there's much more melody to it, and there's much more Queen-esque, richer sounding vocal harmonies. |
| dysan 13.01.2017 03:43 |
I also love Modern Times. The end of TNCD into it is the most exciting part of any Queen album IMO. Good tracklisting. Son & Daughter is a weird one. It was just a boring bluesy song on their first album (again, I was very little) and I think over the years I'd get so used to the many many live versions of it that it became a skipper for me. Then I heard the original album version again for the first time in years and the moment the harmonised guitar comes in, that weird, beautiful sound, it transported me right back to being little again hearing it for the first time with headphones on and going 'woooow'. So nostalgia score: 10, song interest score: 2 |
| Oscar J 13.01.2017 05:44 |
For Son And Daughter, look no further than Rainbow (March 1974) or the BBC July 1973 version. Makes you wonder how they managed to make the album version sound so tame in comparison. |
| dysan 13.01.2017 06:55 |
Waaaa? |
| Oscar J 13.01.2017 07:23 |
Don't know how I'm supposed to interpret that. |
| mike hunt 13.01.2017 09:58 |
My only complaint of the first album is the production, and it ends on a weak note. The last few songs are weaker than the earlier ones. The last month or so I been on a Queen 1 and Queen 2 kick. Those were the albums that got me into Queen way back in the day. I almost forgot how great Queen 1 was. Almost every song is solid. The studio version of son and Daughter was ok, but why did they cut out that drum solo at the end? The BBC version is much stronger. |
| 7cees 13.01.2017 10:26 |
mike hunt wrote: Hot Space hasn't aged well for me, but I do like cool Cat and Back Chat. Cool Cat, his voice is at it's best. Sheer heart attack as a favorite Queen song is not nearly as strange as someone saying Drowse is the best song on A Day At The Races, like someone said on this thread. That one had me scratching my head. Drowse is my all time favourite Queen song.... Scratch away.... |
| dysan 13.01.2017 12:10 |
It's definitely up there for me too.A weird nostalgia vibe which really spoke to me before I knew what nostalgia was. |
| The Real Wizard 13.01.2017 14:09 |
dysan wrote: Son & Daughter is a weird one. It was just a boring bluesy song on their first album (again, I was very little) and I think over the years I'd get so used to the many many live versions of it that it became a skipper for me. Then I heard the original album version again for the first time in years and the moment the harmonised guitar comes in, that weird, beautiful sound, it transported me right back to being little again hearing it for the first time with headphones on and going 'woooow'. So nostalgia score: 10, song interest score: 2You get the best of both worlds with the BBC session 2 version - the interlude plus the harmonies in the last verse. |
| dysan 13.01.2017 14:47 |
Yes - I should've said it was actually the BBC version 2 that reminded me (downloaded from here, ooo when was it? 2005?) rather than the album cut. Kept the story simple :) |
| Oscar J 13.01.2017 15:04 |
The Real Wizard wrote:dysan wrote: Son & Daughter is a weird one. It was just a boring bluesy song on their first album (again, I was very little) and I think over the years I'd get so used to the many many live versions of it that it became a skipper for me. Then I heard the original album version again for the first time in years and the moment the harmonised guitar comes in, that weird, beautiful sound, it transported me right back to being little again hearing it for the first time with headphones on and going 'woooow'. So nostalgia score: 10, song interest score: 2You get the best of both worlds with the BBC session 2 version - the interlude plus the harmonies in the last verse. Complete with a super raw sound, a more to the point guitar solo, and with Taylor delivering thunderous drumming and a haunted head voice scream. Plus the "steel yourself, this is valid" bit. Gotta love it. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 13.01.2017 22:31 |
"Fun it is one of my least favorite songs by Roger. Don't like either of his songs on Jazz. Am I the only one here who likes leaving home ain't easy? Not on par with Brians best, but I still like it."
I have always loved Leaving Home Ain't Easy and actually would count it as one of his better tracks and that's saying a LOT as he is a terrific songwriter. As far as Fun It? I love that one, too! I guess I can see why many don't but I love that funky, slinky riff and I really love Freddie's vocal parts in it. |
| The Real Wizard 14.01.2017 01:01 |
Oscar J wrote:Aye, totally. Certainly the definitive version of the song, I'd say.The Real Wizard wrote:Complete with a super raw sound, a more to the point guitar solo, and with Taylor delivering thunderous drumming and a haunted head voice scream. Plus the "steel yourself, this is valid" bit. Gotta love it.dysan wrote: Son & Daughter is a weird one. It was just a boring bluesy song on their first album (again, I was very little) and I think over the years I'd get so used to the many many live versions of it that it became a skipper for me. Then I heard the original album version again for the first time in years and the moment the harmonised guitar comes in, that weird, beautiful sound, it transported me right back to being little again hearing it for the first time with headphones on and going 'woooow'. So nostalgia score: 10, song interest score: 2You get the best of both worlds with the BBC session 2 version - the interlude plus the harmonies in the last verse. |
| mooghead 14.01.2017 04:12 |
7cees wrote:Mine toomike hunt wrote: Hot Space hasn't aged well for me, but I do like cool Cat and Back Chat. Cool Cat, his voice is at it's best. Sheer heart attack as a favorite Queen song is not nearly as strange as someone saying Drowse is the best song on A Day At The Races, like someone said on this thread. That one had me scratching my head.Drowse is my all time favourite Queen song.... Scratch away.... |
| mooghead 14.01.2017 04:14 |
"My only complaint of the first album is the production" Yeah but Queen weren't Queen then, they were just some piss pot band sneaking in when everyone else went home. People forget that. |
| mike hunt 14.01.2017 14:51 |
mooghead wrote: "My only complaint of the first album is the production" Yeah but Queen weren't Queen then, they were just some piss pot band sneaking in when everyone else went home. People forget that.Of course I know their history, a lot of bands first album were poor in production. Some of these albums are fantastic regardless. Queen 1 is one of them. Queen on air gave the early stuff new life. Like someone mentioned, Son and Daughter is better at the BBC. Moder times also is heavier. What other Tracks do you folks prefer on Queen On Air? |
| mike hunt 14.01.2017 15:05 |
I always said Races didn't have a bad song on it, so it's not like I said it was bad. A poster said it was controversial for someone liking SHA as their favorite Queen song. I think Drowse is a bit more controversial In my Opinion. I never heard this song praised outside of this site, and I read a lot reviews online from Amazon and talking with fans in the real world. SHA does get mentioned more as classic Queen. That's all I'm saying. |
| strangefrontier 14.01.2017 19:20 |
Sebastian wrote: So far, all of the so-called evidence for a planned double-album has come from people who weren't there, and none of the eye witnesses or people involved with the project (the band, the engineer, the technicians) has ever confirmed - to my knowledge- said rumour. So an unsubstatiated rumour it remains to me... should sound evidence ever come to my attention claiming the contrary, I'll be happy to stand corrected, but until then, I remain sceptical.This is from the US press kit: |
| Sebastian 14.01.2017 20:28 |
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear: I was talking about 'The Game' and the recurring rumour it was initially meant to be a double album. |
| dysan 15.01.2017 04:04 |
I like this thread |
| cmsdrums 15.01.2017 04:29 |
strangefrontier wrote: This is from the US press kit:love the fact that Freddie is simply listed as "keyboardist"!! |
| dysan 15.01.2017 05:31 |
Maracas and sometimes vocals. |
| The Real Wizard 15.01.2017 12:31 |
mike hunt wrote: What other Tracks do you folks prefer on Queen On Air?Spread Your Wings. No contest. It slays the original. |
| Saint Jiub 15.01.2017 12:42 |
The Real Wizard wrote:mike hunt wrote: What other Tracks do you folks prefer on Queen On Air?Spread Your Wings. No contest. It slays the original. I never understood why Queen stopped performing the SYW "BBC version" early in the North American tour (and performed the tame studio version instead). ... IMHO - White Queen slays the original studio version as well. |
| The Real Wizard 15.01.2017 12:48 |
strangefrontier wrote:That's an excellent read - thanks for posting !Sebastian wrote: So far, all of the so-called evidence for a planned double-album has come from people who weren't there, and none of the eye witnesses or people involved with the project (the band, the engineer, the technicians) has ever confirmed - to my knowledge- said rumour. So an unsubstatiated rumour it remains to me... should sound evidence ever come to my attention claiming the contrary, I'll be happy to stand corrected, but until then, I remain sceptical.This is from the US press kit: Any chance you could post the remaining page(s) ? |
| The Real Wizard 15.01.2017 12:49 |
Panchgani wrote: I never understood why Queen stopped performing the SYW "BBC version" early in the North American tour (and performed the tame studio version instead).Maybe because they released it as a single in Europe in early 78, and they wanted to keep the song as people were used to hearing it on the radio? |
| strangefrontier 15.01.2017 14:34 |
The Real Wizard wrote:No problem!strangefrontier wrote:That's an excellent read - thanks for posting ! Any chance you could post the remaining page(s) ?Sebastian wrote: So far, all of the so-called evidence for a planned double-album has come from people who weren't there, and none of the eye witnesses or people involved with the project (the band, the engineer, the technicians) has ever confirmed - to my knowledge- said rumour. So an unsubstatiated rumour it remains to me... should sound evidence ever come to my attention claiming the contrary, I'll be happy to stand corrected, but until then, I remain sceptical.This is from the US press kit: |
| strangefrontier 15.01.2017 14:38 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Panchgani wrote: I never understood why Queen stopped performing the SYW "BBC version" early in the North American tour (and performed the tame studio version instead).Maybe because they released it as a single in Europe in early 78, and they wanted to keep the song as people were used to hearing it on the radio? |
| strangefrontier 15.01.2017 14:39 |
The Real Wizard wrote:strangefrontier wrote:That's an excellent read - thanks for posting ! Any chance you could post the remaining page(s) ?Sebastian wrote: So far, all of the so-called evidence for a planned double-album has come from people who weren't there, and none of the eye witnesses or people involved with the project (the band, the engineer, the technicians) has ever confirmed - to my knowledge- said rumour. So an unsubstatiated rumour it remains to me... should sound evidence ever come to my attention claiming the contrary, I'll be happy to stand corrected, but until then, I remain sceptical.This is from the US press kit: |
| strangefrontier 15.01.2017 14:40 |
The Real Wizard wrote:strangefrontier wrote:That's an excellent read - thanks for posting ! Any chance you could post the remaining page(s) ?Sebastian wrote: So far, all of the so-called evidence for a planned double-album has come from people who weren't there, and none of the eye witnesses or people involved with the project (the band, the engineer, the technicians) has ever confirmed - to my knowledge- said rumour. So an unsubstatiated rumour it remains to me... should sound evidence ever come to my attention claiming the contrary, I'll be happy to stand corrected, but until then, I remain sceptical.This is from the US press kit: |
| strangefrontier 15.01.2017 14:43 |
The Real Wizard wrote:strangefrontier wrote:That's an excellent read - thanks for posting ! Any chance you could post the remaining page(s) ?Sebastian wrote: So far, all of the so-called evidence for a planned double-album has come from people who weren't there, and none of the eye witnesses or people involved with the project (the band, the engineer, the technicians) has ever confirmed - to my knowledge- said rumour. So an unsubstatiated rumour it remains to me... should sound evidence ever come to my attention claiming the contrary, I'll be happy to stand corrected, but until then, I remain sceptical.This is from the US press kit: |
| strangefrontier 15.01.2017 14:44 |
The Real Wizard wrote:strangefrontier wrote:That's an excellent read - thanks for posting ! Any chance you could post the remaining page(s) ?Sebastian wrote: So far, all of the so-called evidence for a planned double-album has come from people who weren't there, and none of the eye witnesses or people involved with the project (the band, the engineer, the technicians) has ever confirmed - to my knowledge- said rumour. So an unsubstatiated rumour it remains to me... should sound evidence ever come to my attention claiming the contrary, I'll be happy to stand corrected, but until then, I remain sceptical.This is from the US press kit: |
| strangefrontier 15.01.2017 14:45 |
The Real Wizard wrote:strangefrontier wrote:That's an excellent read - thanks for posting ! Any chance you could post the remaining page(s) ?Sebastian wrote: So far, all of the so-called evidence for a planned double-album has come from people who weren't there, and none of the eye witnesses or people involved with the project (the band, the engineer, the technicians) has ever confirmed - to my knowledge- said rumour. So an unsubstatiated rumour it remains to me... should sound evidence ever come to my attention claiming the contrary, I'll be happy to stand corrected, but until then, I remain sceptical.This is from the US press kit: |
| strangefrontier 15.01.2017 14:45 |
The Real Wizard wrote:strangefrontier wrote:That's an excellent read - thanks for posting ! Any chance you could post the remaining page(s) ?Sebastian wrote: So far, all of the so-called evidence for a planned double-album has come from people who weren't there, and none of the eye witnesses or people involved with the project (the band, the engineer, the technicians) has ever confirmed - to my knowledge- said rumour. So an unsubstatiated rumour it remains to me... should sound evidence ever come to my attention claiming the contrary, I'll be happy to stand corrected, but until then, I remain sceptical.This is from the US press kit: |
| strangefrontier 15.01.2017 14:46 |
The Real Wizard wrote:strangefrontier wrote:That's an excellent read - thanks for posting ! Any chance you could post the remaining page(s) ?Sebastian wrote: So far, all of the so-called evidence for a planned double-album has come from people who weren't there, and none of the eye witnesses or people involved with the project (the band, the engineer, the technicians) has ever confirmed - to my knowledge- said rumour. So an unsubstatiated rumour it remains to me... should sound evidence ever come to my attention claiming the contrary, I'll be happy to stand corrected, but until then, I remain sceptical.This is from the US press kit: |
| strangefrontier 15.01.2017 14:47 |
The Real Wizard wrote:strangefrontier wrote:That's an excellent read - thanks for posting ! Any chance you could post the remaining page(s) ?Sebastian wrote: So far, all of the so-called evidence for a planned double-album has come from people who weren't there, and none of the eye witnesses or people involved with the project (the band, the engineer, the technicians) has ever confirmed - to my knowledge- said rumour. So an unsubstatiated rumour it remains to me... should sound evidence ever come to my attention claiming the contrary, I'll be happy to stand corrected, but until then, I remain sceptical.This is from the US press kit: |
| Saint Jiub 15.01.2017 16:27 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Panchgani wrote: I never understood why Queen stopped performing the SYW "BBC version" early in the North American tour (and performed the tame studio version instead).Maybe because they released it as a single in Europe in early 78, and they wanted to keep the song as people were used to hearing it on the radio? But there was little or no airplay of SYW in North America, and Queen changed to the studio version early in the North American tour. I wonder if John was not particularly fond of the fast ending, as it changes the mood of the song, and put his foot down as the writer's "perogative". |
| Sebastian 15.01.2017 17:17 |
strangefrontier wrote:Thanks! You rock! |
| The Real Wizard 15.01.2017 22:37 |
strangefrontier wrote:Ahh - many thanks ! This is gold.The Real Wizard wrote: That's an excellent read - thanks for posting ! Any chance you could post the remaining page(s) ?No problem! |
| The Real Wizard 15.01.2017 22:37 |
Panchgani wrote:Yeah, perhaps that was the case.The Real Wizard wrote:But there was little or no airplay of SYW in North America, and Queen changed to the studio version early in the North American tour. I wonder if John was not particularly fond of the fast ending, as it changes the mood of the song, and put his foot down as the writer's "perogative".Panchgani wrote: I never understood why Queen stopped performing the SYW "BBC version" early in the North American tour (and performed the tame studio version instead).Maybe because they released it as a single in Europe in early 78, and they wanted to keep the song as people were used to hearing it on the radio? But they definitely did the BBC style ending throughout the US tour. It's on the Philadelphia and New York recordings. |
| Saint Jiub 15.01.2017 23:45 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Panchgani wrote:Yeah, perhaps that was the case. But they definitely did the BBC style ending throughout the US tour. It's on the Philadelphia and New York recordings.The Real Wizard wrote:But there was little or no airplay of SYW in North America, and Queen changed to the studio version early in the North American tour. I wonder if John was not particularly fond of the fast ending, as it changes the mood of the song, and put his foot down as the writer's "perogative".Panchgani wrote: I never understood why Queen stopped performing the SYW "BBC version" early in the North American tour (and performed the tame studio version instead).Maybe because they released it as a single in Europe in early 78, and they wanted to keep the song as people were used to hearing it on the radio? ... When did Queen switch to the slow version? ... some time after Dec 1st? Philly in Nov ... SYW was fast NY Dec 1st ... SYW was fast Chicago Dec 5th ... SYW fast or slow???? Houston Dec 11th ... SYW was slow |
| musicland munich 16.01.2017 01:06 |
Just curious...do we know exactly when the recording session for "Jazz" took place. I've read that the album was mostly finished ( except bits and pieces ) around Freddie's Birthday in 78. David Bowie made a statement that he is sure that the new album will deliver some "Hits" Áfter the celebrations the band was planning to head for Nice to do finishing touches on that Album. |
| Sebastian 16.01.2017 05:47 |
July to September but, alas, they're yet to give anything more specific than that. The bicycle race incident took place on Brian's birthday. |
| strangefrontier 16.01.2017 16:36 |
The Real Wizard wrote:No problem! I also found this picture last year of a Jazz promotional display in a shop window. I wonder if there are other shots of album displays in shop fronts?strangefrontier wrote:Ahh - many thanks ! This is gold.The Real Wizard wrote: That's an excellent read - thanks for posting ! Any chance you could post the remaining page(s) ?No problem! |
| mike hunt 16.01.2017 19:29 |
dysan wrote: I also rate Cool Cat quite highly so what do I know :)I rate One Year Of Love quite highly so what do I know |
| The Real Wizard 16.01.2017 22:07 |
Panchgani wrote:Chicago was fast.The Real Wizard wrote:... When did Queen switch to the slow version? ... some time after Dec 1st? Philly in Nov ... SYW was fast NY Dec 1st ... SYW was fast Chicago Dec 5th ... SYW fast or slow???? Houston Dec 11th ... SYW was slowPanchgani wrote:Yeah, perhaps that was the case. But they definitely did the BBC style ending throughout the US tour. It's on the Philadelphia and New York recordings.The Real Wizard wrote:But there was little or no airplay of SYW in North America, and Queen changed to the studio version early in the North American tour. I wonder if John was not particularly fond of the fast ending, as it changes the mood of the song, and put his foot down as the writer's "perogative".Panchgani wrote: I never understood why Queen stopped performing the SYW "BBC version" early in the North American tour (and performed the tame studio version instead).Maybe because they released it as a single in Europe in early 78, and they wanted to keep the song as people were used to hearing it on the radio? And they didn't play it in Houston. Unless you've got a tape that none of us here have heard !? |
| Saint Jiub 16.01.2017 23:06 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Panchgani wrote:Chicago was fast. And they didn't play it in Houston. Unless you've got a tape that none of us here have heard !?The Real Wizard wrote:... When did Queen switch to the slow version? ... some time after Dec 1st? Philly in Nov ... SYW was fast NY Dec 1st ... SYW was fast Chicago Dec 5th ... SYW fast or slow???? Houston Dec 11th ... SYW was slowPanchgani wrote:Yeah, perhaps that was the case. But they definitely did the BBC style ending throughout the US tour. It's on the Philadelphia and New York recordings.The Real Wizard wrote:But there was little or no airplay of SYW in North America, and Queen changed to the studio version early in the North American tour. I wonder if John was not particularly fond of the fast ending, as it changes the mood of the song, and put his foot down as the writer's "perogative".Panchgani wrote: I never understood why Queen stopped performing the SYW "BBC version" early in the North American tour (and performed the tame studio version instead).Maybe because they released it as a single in Europe in early 78, and they wanted to keep the song as people were used to hearing it on the radio? ... Nope ... Evidently my mind transformed my disappointment that the fast SYW was not performed in Houston into a longstanding false memory that a slow version of SYW was performed. It seems that the slow version of SYW was never performed during the North American tour. Thanks for setting me straight. ... apologies from a mere metallurgist ... |
| Sebastian 17.01.2017 10:20 |
Being a metallurgist does not prevent you from being able to post accurate information and/or react maturely if/when corrected. That is on you, not your profession/job. |
| The Real Wizard 17.01.2017 15:48 |
Sebastian wrote: Being a metallurgist does not prevent you from being able to post accurate information and/or react maturely if/when corrected. That is on you, not your profession/job.He's referring to some other thread where he tried to disqualify me from a discussion because I was a musician. So I guess now we're even !? ha ! |
| Sebastian 17.01.2017 16:41 |
I know that, but the point still stands. |
| IanR 17.01.2017 18:57 |
I think the most interesting insight to be gleaned from the Jazz promotional material is the revelation that Fred was less than satisfied with NOTW. Also, I believe Greg Brooks stated in a Record Collector article that only 13 tracks were demoed for Jazz and they were the same ideas that emerged on the final LP. Take that claim with or without as much salt as you want. |
| Sebastian 18.01.2017 05:08 |
IanR wrote: I think the most interesting insight to be gleaned from the Jazz promotional material is the revelation that Fred was less than satisfied with NOTW.I was born long after that album, but my dad once told me he was surprised at the time by how comparatively little involvement from Frederick there was on 'News' - and he had a point: Brian sings lead on two, Roger on one (and a half), there's much less piano than on 'Races' and there's a lot less emphasis on harmonies ... so Fred didn't really have that much to do compared to the previous five records. It also makes sense in hindsight to realise something was wrong with him (again, compared to previous records) since he really only wrote two songs for the album - 'Champions' was actually rescued, since he'd written it at least two years prior but they hadn't recorded it yet. IanR wrote: Also, I believe Greg Brooks stated in a Record Collector article that only 13 tracks were demoed for Jazz and they were the same ideas that emerged on the final LP. Take that claim with or without as much salt as you want.For the sake of argument, he could still be right: the four or five songs in question could've been discarded at rehearsal stages, before there could even be demos of them. |
| The Real Wizard 18.01.2017 10:43 |
IanR wrote: I think the most interesting insight to be gleaned from the Jazz promotional material is the revelation that Fred was less than satisfied with NOTW.Indeed. And I've also heard a radio interview from right after NOTW was released where he more or less says that he recognizes Queen have hit their creative peak, as there's not much more they could do with harmonies and all that. How right he was. |
| Saint Jiub 18.01.2017 19:24 |
The Real Wizard wrote:IanR wrote: I think the most interesting insight to be gleaned from the Jazz promotional material is the revelation that Fred was less than satisfied with NOTW.Indeed. And I've also heard a radio interview from right after NOTW was released where he more or less says that he recognizes Queen have hit their creative peak, as there's not much more they could do with harmonies and all that. How right he was. ... and after Jazz, they started using synths, and became mostly a singles machine with less use of piano, and less emphasis on Brian's unique guitar sound. |
| mike hunt 18.01.2017 19:27 |
Doesn't mean he wasn't satisfied with NOTW, he Just mean't they peaked on that Opera/Races style and needed a new direction. That's why they went for a straight foward approach with NOTW. Freddie said his favorite album was The Game, so maybe for him that was another peak for Queen. He probably said that in the early 80's, so I wonder what his favorite would be now. |
| mike hunt 18.01.2017 19:33 |
Sebastian wrote:Yea, freddie wrote less, but his vocal performances were very strong on News, and wrote the biggest hit along with Brians Rock you.IanR wrote: I think the most interesting insight to be gleaned from the Jazz promotional material is the revelation that Fred was less than satisfied with NOTW.I was born long after that album, but my dad once told me he was surprised at the time by how comparatively little involvement from Frederick there was on 'News' - and he had a point: Brian sings lead on two, Roger on one (and a half), there's much less piano than on 'Races' and there's a lot less emphasis on harmonies ... so Fred didn't really have that much to do compared to the previous five records. It also makes sense in hindsight to realise something was wrong with him (again, compared to previous records) since he really only wrote two songs for the album - 'Champions' was actually rescued, since he'd written it at least two years prior but they hadn't recorded it yet.IanR wrote: Also, I believe Greg Brooks stated in a Record Collector article that only 13 tracks were demoed for Jazz and they were the same ideas that emerged on the final LP. Take that claim with or without as much salt as you want.For the sake of argument, he could still be right: the four or five songs in question could've been discarded at rehearsal stages, before there could even be demos of them. |
| Oscar J 19.01.2017 05:10 |
mike hunt wrote: Doesn't mean he wasn't satisfied with NOTW... But the article states exactly that. |
| mike hunt 19.01.2017 09:03 |
In all honesty I didn't read the article. Maybe he was being over critical of his work. I think NOTW was really good, though not quite on the level of the previous 5 records. They really did peak on Opera/Races, but I remember an Interview with freddie In 1984, the Interviewer hinted that Queen Peaked On ANATO, freddie disagreed and said Queen surpassed Opera by far. Do you remember that Interview? So who knows what he really thought. |
| dysan 19.01.2017 09:41 |
As a kid I couldn't really notice any difference between albums - apart from obviously the more 'synthetic' sounding early 80s ones. Song writing credits were much of a muchness for me, and complex backing vocals were present when required by the song like getting mad guitar on the songs that needed mad guitar. It's only as I grew older I realised that NOTW was very much 'full stop' and they wanted to branch out after pretty much mastering the 'Queen' sound, Jazz was made for live shows, The Game was almost a pastiche of 50s Americana, and Hot Space was - well, we know about that. What I'm saying is that Freddie was satisfied with NOTW for what it was - a 'raw' album that meant he'd make more coin, but it probably wasn't that close to his tastes - but you can imagine him sticking on, say, ADATR at home when he fancied listening to Queen. Also, like many artists perhaps he felt creatively spent after 6/7 years of pouring all those ideas out. Perhaps he felt more distant from it as it wasn't 'his' like all the previous albums arguable could be considered and he wasn't driving it. I dunno. RT was moving into a solo career (slowly) and perhaps Freddie felt, not disenchanted, but certainly like Queen was at a crossroads and that worried him - so it wasn't a period / album he looked upon fondly. |
| The Real Wizard 19.01.2017 12:59 |
Panchgani wrote: and after Jazz, they started using synths, and became mostly a singles machine with less use of piano, and less emphasis on Brian's unique guitar sound.That was more the business calling the shots than anything. All the old 70s acts were left in the dust unless they adapted to both the new technology and the MTV age. And in the UK there was an extra challenge - BBC radio had a "sound". If you didn't have it, they wouldn't play you. Which would largely explain why Queen's singles soon were what they were. Brian almost left the band over his solo in Break Free being replaced with a keyboard. But how many guitar solos were on the radio in 1984? Deacon was right - he saw the bigger picture. A sad one, but it's what it was. |
| The Real Wizard 19.01.2017 13:02 |
mike hunt wrote: I remember an Interview with freddie In 1984, the Interviewer hinted that Queen Peaked On ANATO, freddie disagreed and said Queen surpassed Opera by far.That was probably more akin to him marketing a current product. Of course he won't readily admit that his latest album pales in comparison to what he wrote at his creative peak. Surely he knew the truth deep down. Man On The Prowl doesn't remotely compare to Death On Two Legs. Not much different from Brian and Roger saying how their show with Adam Lambert is as good as it was in the old days. If they say it isn't, then who's going to come? It's all PR. |
| The Real Wizard 19.01.2017 13:10 |
dysan wrote: Also, like many artists perhaps he felt creatively spent after 6/7 years of pouring all those ideas out. Perhaps he felt more distant from it as it wasn't 'his' like all the previous albums arguable could be considered and he wasn't driving it. I dunno. RT was moving into a solo career (slowly) and perhaps Freddie felt, not disenchanted, but certainly like Queen was at a crossroads and that worried him - so it wasn't a period / album he looked upon fondly.That's very astute. It must be hard for any artist to recognize that their creative peak is behind them. But with business pressures (namely a record deal requiring four albums in the next four years) it's not like you can just take 2 or 3 years off to regroup. Few can get away with that. And even if you take your lumps and pay off the record company, you risk falling off the radar and being doomed commercially, which is a hell of a lot worse than churning out a couple below average discs. So instead you just plug your nose and dive in, hoping for the best. Some artists make creative comebacks of sorts, but most end up becoming nostalgia acts at best. Queen created Innuendo, which in all likelihood shouldn't have happened. Had Mercury remained healthy, who's to know what the band would've become in the 90s and beyond. |
| Sebastian 19.01.2017 13:36 |
The Real Wizard wrote: It's all PR.Exactly. Roger even said (at least twice) that Jazz was their best album. Soon afterwards, he openly disowned it. It seems that 'Hot Space' was an exception: as soon as it was out, John was already panning it and Roger and Brian were clear it wasn't the way they would've liked it. Fred just said 'it's only a bloody record,' which can be translated as 'I've got no way to defend it so I'll just pretend I don't care and nobody else should either.' |
| Dim 19.01.2017 13:55 |
Jazz was and experiment album, with very clever ideas. Also music playing was very good by each member. The album was very optimistic but it didn't live up, suffering from bad production. I wish it had The Game production. |
| Sebastian 19.01.2017 14:07 |
The Real Wizard wrote: But how many guitar solos were on the radio in 1984?There were some indeed. For instance, 'Owner of a Lonely Heart', 'Jump' and 'Let's Go Crazy', all of which have great guitar solos and all of which managed to top the Billboard charts in 1984. |
| The Real Wizard 19.01.2017 17:00 |
Sebastian wrote:True - although I was talking about BBC radio, and only one of those tracks cracked the top 20 in the UK.The Real Wizard wrote: But how many guitar solos were on the radio in 1984?There were some indeed. For instance, 'Owner of a Lonely Heart', 'Jump' and 'Let's Go Crazy', all of which have great guitar solos and all of which managed to top the Billboard charts in 1984. There was definitely a lot less heavy guitar on UK radio in the 80s, and I'm sure plenty of British folk here could attest to that. The heavier stuff (particularly hair metal) was a much bigger deal in the US. |
| dysan 20.01.2017 01:25 |
I was there man. I was there *shivers* |
| Sebastian 20.01.2017 05:14 |
America was the band's main target, especially after the HS fiasco. In that sense, having a synth solo on 'Break Free' rather than a killer May-estic guitar one was a really really really bad idea. While Britain was home, they were mostly living in the States back then, so it made more sense to seek that market ... they even started recording the album there. Moreover, since when was that a reason anyway? There were no songs 'like' Bo Rhap on the radio in 1975, and that didn't stop them. |
| Sebastian 20.01.2017 05:14 |
OTOH, a lead guitar part was recorded for 'Do They Know It's Christmas' and then taken out, probably for the same reason 'Break Free' lacked one. Hindsight is 20/20 anyway. |
| Dim 20.01.2017 05:55 |
The Works was going very well in Billboard, they same for Radio Gaga Gaga. Both were going up every week, until the record Payola. Also some bad PR by Queen team, load both album and single to go down. When break free video came things went even worse. The no tour policy didn't help. Break free is a great pop song! With Rock feel. That's the Queen genious. Still on Radio and with good sales. It keeps Queen to the wide public, and who knows? Maybe it brings few new fans to search deeper. |
| Dim 20.01.2017 05:57 |
The Works was going very well in Billboard, the same for Radio Gaga Gaga. Both were going up every week, until the record Payola. Also some bad PR by Queen team, then both album and single to go down. When break free video came things went even worse. The no tour policy didn't help. Break free is a great pop song! With Rock feel. That's the Queen genious. Still on Radio and with good sales. It keeps Queen to the wide public, and who knows? Maybe it brings few new fans to search deeper. |
| Sebastian 20.01.2017 06:33 |
Yeah, the album sold almost as well in America as it did in Britain, but they still could've done a lot better - though, sure, it's far easier in hindsight and from an armchair to ponder - and my overall point is that John wasn't really seeing 'the big picture.' Neither was Frederick, of course, since as far as I know it was his idea not to tour America or Canada, two countries which were, and still are, quite loyal to Queen. The band's strength was their musicality, in my opinion, and when they focused on that they had a lot of commercial success as well. The fact 'Bo Rhap' was not radio-friendly did not stop them from believing in it and taking a risk, and it paid off. 'Champions' was another great song (musically clever) which did not necessarily fit the usual hit format of the time, yet it managed to chart highly and become one of their anthems. 'Rock You' has a very unusual structure and instrumentation especially coming from them. 'Crazy' was harmonically simple but very clever in terms of melody and structure, and it was certainly not a copycat of whichever singles were popular in those days, yet it managed to sell really well. Even 'Dust' was a surprise for them, a risk they took which paid off. Once they started playing it safe and just trying to do what they thought would sell or trying to do what other people were doing, they lost it. They were still creating quality music (because Queen at even 10% of their abilities were still really good) and they were still selling well in America (because even a 'failure' from a band of that calibre would still ship half a million, more than most struggling bands would even dream of) and consolidating their fame in Europe and Brazil and other territories, yet it was certainly not the same. |
| mike hunt 20.01.2017 09:00 |
Sebastian wrote: Yeah, the album sold almost as well in America as it did in Britain, but they still could've done a lot better - though, sure, it's far easier in hindsight and from an armchair to ponder - and my overall point is that John wasn't really seeing 'the big picture.' Neither was Frederick, of course, since as far as I know it was his idea not to tour America or Canada, two countries which were, and still are, quite loyal to Queen. The band's strength was their musicality, in my opinion, and when they focused on that they had a lot of commercial success as well. The fact 'Bo Rhap' was not radio-friendly did not stop them from believing in it and taking a risk, and it paid off. 'Champions' was another great song (musically clever) which did not necessarily fit the usual hit format of the time, yet it managed to chart highly and become one of their anthems. 'Rock You' has a very unusual structure and instrumentation especially coming from them. 'Crazy' was harmonically simple but very clever in terms of melody and structure, and it was certainly not a copycat of whichever singles were popular in those days, yet it managed to sell really well. Even 'Dust' was a surprise for them, a risk they took which paid off. Once they started playing it safe and just trying to do what they thought would sell or trying to do what other people were doing, they lost it. They were still creating quality music (because Queen at even 10% of their abilities were still really good) and they were still selling well in America (because even a 'failure' from a band of that calibre would still ship half a million, more than most struggling bands would even dream of) and consolidating their fame in Europe and Brazil and other territories, yet it was certainly not the same. |
| mike hunt 20.01.2017 09:25 |
Good post! If they toured America, The Works would have sold better, even if it was a smaller tour. The Album was decent, better than a lot of the crap on the radio in those days. Radio Ga Ga was in the top 40 and the album was selling. What's the reason the band decided not to do an American tour? They had a hit with Ga Ga, with a tour they could have promoted a 2nd single. Break Free was a bad choice for America. Hammer to fall or Hard life were better choices. They didn't play it safe all the time in the 80's, It's A Hard Life wasn't exactly 80's style music, it Should have been the 2nd single, but I guess they figured the Break Free style was in at the time. |
| on my way up 20.01.2017 09:39 |
Not touring the US/Canada in 1984/1985 was a bad decision for sure. But, the band was - I'm afraid - not in the right state to do a long US tour to win over that audience once again... It actually takes a lot doing and they weren't ready physically and evenmoreso mentally. The Australian shows they did in 1985 are - while not bad shows - surely the most lacklustre in Queen's career. I'm convinced that Freddie's health was deteriorating from 1984 onwards. You have to keep in mind he was a very fit young man... It takes aids some time to tear down the immunesystem. This is what happened in the period 1984-1986/87. No wonder FM was so tired after the magic tour, it is a typical sign of someone with HIV who's getting worse. |
| Dim 20.01.2017 09:43 |
I agree with both of you, Sebastian and Mike. To go back to the topic about Jazz album, I think many songs even the big hits lost an amounts of energy and music due to bad engineering and production. I don't know if a remix could made a difference. Since the 5.1mixes of the three singles alive with the instrumental Milestone from the Eye, showed a better results, away from the very tiny a blur mudy sound that the album have. To be fair the 2011 remaster and the new vinyl have bright, clearer and keep the low and high ends well balanced than the previous releases. |
| Dim 20.01.2017 09:47 |
I agree with both of you, Sebastian and Mike. To go back to the topic about Jazz album, I think many songs even the big hits lost an amounts of energy and musicality due to bad engineering and production. I don't know, if a remix could make a difference. Since the 5.1mixes of the three singles along with the instrumental songs from the Eye, showed a better results, away from the very tiny a blur mudy sound that the album have. P. S. Sorry for double posts, autocorrect from my mobile, After posting.... To be fair the 2011 remaster and the new vinyl have bright, clearer and keep the low and high ends well balanced than the previous releases. |
| mike hunt 20.01.2017 11:04 |
Yea, but Fat Bottomed Girls is still considered a classic in America, they love that song to this day. Don't me Now is one of their biggest UK hits. They still had plenty of energy on that album, though I do agree the production was crap and if it had better production the album would have been overall much better. No Question about that. I still think Mustapha could of been a hit, lol. The song had a buzz surrounding it here in the states, and you can hear the crowds chanting it at concerts. |
| Vocal harmony 20.01.2017 11:37 |
I think the album, as a collection of songs, work. It suffered from some questionable production and attention to detail. Remember the original mix contained a song with an instrument mixed out. How could a group of musicians and a top line producer agree to let that mix go to press. If it was down to mastering, then that is questionable too because when the acetate was listened too surely someone would have raised a question over. I think this one "hole" in the sound is where the real answer to how this album sounds lies. Once recorded both band and producer couldn't give a flying one about it, for what ever reason. The album was late (maybe rushed) and they were more interested in the US tour looming, which got under way before the album was released. Given a little more time and maybe without RTB Jazz may have sounded better and more cared about. As for the bands comments, as with any band, the latest album is usually "the best, or "most like the classic sound" because most bands are like their record company, they have a job to do and that is to sell the latest product! |
| mike hunt 20.01.2017 13:13 |
The production on Innuendo could have been better as well. |
| Daro 20.01.2017 21:42 |
|
| dysan 21.01.2017 02:09 |
No one has explained the 'production' problems yet. If it's just mix issues that's personal taste - and I don't have any issues :) |
| Sebastian 21.01.2017 06:32 |
dysan wrote: No one has explained the 'production' problems yet.Of course they have: Vocal harmony wrote: Remember the original mix contained a song with an instrument mixed out. How could a group of musicians and a top line producer agree to let that mix go to press. dysan wrote: If it's just mix issues that's personal taste - and I don't have any issues :)It's not up to personal taste whether an instrument was accidentally muted. Either it happened or it didn't. There's a difference between 'I don't mind that error' and 'there's no error.' |
| Holly2003 21.01.2017 10:27 |
At least two band members, the producer, and probably a lot of the crew were (allegedly) coked out of their heads in this time period. That prob explains the production error and perhaps other issues with the sound. I agree (with myself mostly, since I've said it many times before) that Queen went creatively downhill when they started trying to write hits e.g. Hot Space as a follow up to AOBTD, and then with The Works bland radio-friendly tracks. Crazy Little Thing wasn't some out-of-the-blue stroke of creative genius that was completely at odds with other chart hits. In the UK, artists like Cliff Richard, Alvin Stardust, Mud, Darts and Showaddywaddy based their careers on sub-Elvis stylings, and artists like Dave Edmunds, Steve Gibbons Band and Stray Cats had rockabilly hits in the UK in the late 1970s. |
| dysan 21.01.2017 11:01 |
The bass drum on Jealousy isn't a 'production' problem and not something anyone noticed or picked up on until it was reinstated on the 2011 reissue. I assume we are discussing things like the drums sounding flat or the guitars being too loud and cluttering up the mix. |
| Dim 21.01.2017 11:17 |
In the late 70s there was a 50s rivive. That's why Crazy had success. About Jazz production Brian mentioned few thing about it, when the sound engineer died. Brian wrote that, the engineer was good on cut-edit tapes etc, and how he helped them with the mix and sound. The sound was not what they expected. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 21.01.2017 11:56 |
Sebastian wrote: Once they started playing it safe and just trying to do what they thought would sell or trying to do what other people were doing, they lost it. They were still creating quality music (because Queen at even 10% of their abilities were still really good) and they were still selling well in America (because even a 'failure' from a band of that calibre would still ship half a million, more than most struggling bands would even dream of) and consolidating their fame in Europe and Brazil and other territories, yet it was certainly not the same.What a great post...I agree with every word of it. |
| mooghead 21.01.2017 12:11 |
"two band members, the producer, and probably a lot of the crew were (allegedly) coked out of their heads in this time period. That prob explains the production error" The album would have been heard at various stages by lots of people before publication, not least Mr. Perfectionist Brian May. It has absolutely nothing to do with people's vices. |
| Holly2003 21.01.2017 12:22 |
Look at the album cover ffs! :p |
| PrimeJiveUSA 21.01.2017 12:34 |
Holly2003 wrote: At least two band members, the producer, and probably a lot of the crew were (allegedly) coked out of their heads in this time period.I've only heard of Freddie using Coke...who was the other one? |
| Sebastian 21.01.2017 16:27 |
Perhaps the one who was famously a party animal and who became a rock star partly to be able to have that sort of lifestyle. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 21.01.2017 19:23 |
Roger? |
| IanR 21.01.2017 21:48 |
No, Daffy fucking Duck ..... |
| mike hunt 21.01.2017 22:18 |
John |
| Saint Jiub 21.01.2017 22:56 |
mike hunt wrote: John It's the quiet ones you have to worry about |
| Sebastian 21.01.2017 23:40 |
Could've been both - Brian was clean, there's nothing to suspect the others were. |
| The Real Wizard 22.01.2017 01:32 |
Sebastian wrote: There were no songs 'like' Bo Rhap on the radio in 1975, and that didn't stop them.Because the radio wasn't nearly as formulaic in 1975 as it was by the 80s, or even 1978. Things changed hugely in that period, on both sides of the Atlantic - there were no playlists in 1975, at least not in the form that they became in the 80s, where they were created purely for the purpose of maximizing advertising revenue as opposed to being a reflection of the variety of music available. Risks could pan out in 75, but it was completely out of the question by 84. If you didn't conform, you weren't played, end of. Excellent discussion here, btw ! |
| cmsdrums 22.01.2017 07:44 |
dysan wrote: The bass drum on Jealousy isn't a 'production' problem and not something anyone noticed or picked up on until it was reinstated on the 2011 reissue.....I did! - always baffled me though as to whether it was an error or a choice. As soon as the 2011 mix came out I also pointed out on Brian's Soapbox that Josh had missed one bass drum beat in the restore (and I'm confident it's a missed beat rather than Roger not playing it originally), he replied in a very rude and condescending manner, and then his post was removed a day or two later! |
| dysan 22.01.2017 07:56 |
Heh. When mixing, you start with the drums - and they'll very usually have exactly the same mics on each part for the entire session. So I'd err to it being a mixing decision. A weird one, but it's highly unlikely they'd have for that one track the bass drum was on another track on the other end of the mixing desk. Unless they decided it was going to be overdubbed by, I dunno, a tuba parp on each beat. And that got accidently left out and the real bass drum was muted. But that said, someone would notice the tuba parp was missing. So yeah, a conscious decision to mix it out. |
| Sebastian 22.01.2017 08:19 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Because the radio wasn't nearly as formulaic in 1975 as it was by the 80s, or even 1978... Risks could pan out in 75, but it was completely out of the question by 84. If you didn't conform, you weren't played, end of.That's indeed a great point and one I hadn't thought of. Not to dismiss how valuable Bo Rhap was, but it seems that the whole 'everybody collectivelly begged them not to release it' might've been blown out of proportion to contribute to the myth, same as the 180 voices, being the first video, three solid weeks of recording, 16-track ... all of which have been all but debunked and all of which still stem from a fact which was initially true. It was still a risk, of course, and a big risk at that, but not the massive 'against the grain' challenge it's often presented as by the media and the fans. 'Hey Jude' had set a precedent for a largely successful really long single, 'I'm Not in Love' had been No 1 earlier that year and it was also long and with plenty of overdubs (though that one they did edit for the single version). So perhaps a song like 'Bo Rhap' had a chance of one in a thousand to top the charts in 1975, but in 1984 it would've been one in a million... add to it the fact Queen were still relatively unknown in '75 (they'd had a minor local hit and a medium-sized international one) so they hadn't been typecast yet. cmsdrums wrote: As soon as the 2011 mix came out I also pointed out on Brian's Soapbox that Josh had missed one bass drum beat in the restore (and I'm confident it's a missed beat rather than Roger not playing it originally), he replied in a very rude and condescending manner, and then his post was removed a day or two later!I remember that and I resent not having printscreened that before they took it away. I don't think Brian had anything to do with it or even knew about it, but if that's the case then it shows again how some (not all) of the people who work for QP are simply unfit for that job in terms of basic human decency and manners. Prenter's been demonised for keeping Fred sheltered and deliberately filtering communication on both directions, but those who often pan him nowadays are surrounded by some people who are more or less doing the same thing. dysan wrote: So yeah, a conscious decision to mix it out.The aforementioned rude response and swift removal of it back in 2011 contradicts that conclusion ... which doesn't mean you're wrong: most likely, the QP employee in question was wrong and perhaps one of the reasons why they had to delete it was that they were making a factual statement about the original mix, which they did not witness as they entered the Queen organisation much, much later. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 22.01.2017 10:04 |
IanR wrote: No, Daffy fucking Duck .....There's no need to be mean-spirited and rude. I have never read anywhere about Roger using drugs. The only interview I have seen him address the issue is one where he said he was "never one for drugs" and that he tried marijuana ONCE and it made him sick. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 22.01.2017 10:44 |
Sebastian wrote: |
| Sheer Brass Neck 22.01.2017 10:49 |
For those interested in production stuff, here's the full read, and lots of great stories on how things got made: link |
| dysan 22.01.2017 11:03 |
I adore 10CC |
| dysan 22.01.2017 11:11 |
RE the bass drum: I think in QP's mind - as they've discussed bonus material before - it's very simplistic. For example the KYA 'long lost retake' note on the Hollywood reissue of Q1 was quite naïve to a point. Like they are giving us a little peek which is special and while not like we are honoured to hear it, very much how a parent would describe something to a child to make them appreciate it. When someone questions it as in 'why / how / etc' they lose their shit and can't understand how the child is now not totally taken in by the explanation. |
| The Real Wizard 22.01.2017 13:09 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: I have never read anywhere about Roger using drugs. The only interview I have seen him address the issue is one where he said he was "never one for drugs" and that he tried marijuana ONCE and it made him sick.It's definitely no secret that Freddie and Roger enjoyed their Colombian marching powder on the road. Queen wisely never wanted to be seen as a drug band, as it certainly never got in the way of their shows - but there are plenty of stories from road crew (and even the band members) saying how the excess got out of control by a certain point. There's a 2005ish magazine (I wish I remembered which one) where an anonymous crew member speaks out about all this. He said it hit a point where the show wouldn't start until the goods showed up. |
| dysan 22.01.2017 13:44 |
#lads |
| Sebastian 22.01.2017 13:46 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Remember, each member sang each line in unison.But that wouldn't happen for every single line, as the multi-tracks clearly show. The lowest ones would be just Frederick, and from around the f" onwards it would be just Roger. The high bb" on 'for me' is just Roger and he's not double- or triple-tracked at all. Sheer Brass Neck wrote: One section of BR has 8 or 9 harmony lines.Which one? The song's got a few tetrachords and perhaps a couple of pentachords but they rarely went beyond that, perhaps one or two parts were done in octaves but that wasn't by any means the norm. 'Scaramouche ... Fandango' is clearly just three parts, expanded to five for 'very, very frightening me'. Most of those big choir parts are usually four- or five-part, a few of them are six. Not eight or nine and that difference does matter for the final calculation since that means 12 less voices ... subtract the very low parts which had only Frederick (not the three of them, therefore one or two voices instead of six) and the top line which was usually just Roger (and usually not double-tracked) and you get probably 30 voices tops. Sheer Brass Neck wrote: So that's 48 or 54 "voices" on that section alone.And even if they added up to that, it would be 54, not 180. That's my point. Sheer Brass Neck wrote: If it's semantics and individual voices, no way it's 180.And that's my point exactly. Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Recorded vocal lines? I can see it pretty easily.Sure, if we count each line as a separate recording and so on, it can be thousands ... but that's like religious apologists defending the scriptures by saying 'well, yeah, of course the earth's not 6,000 years old, but it's a metaphor - you need to read it in context!' There are at least four identifiable variables when it comes to this particular legend: 1. Was it physically possible to have 180 simultaneous vocal overdubs? 2. Would it make sense for what they were trying to do? 3. Did they do it? 4. Did they say they did it? And of course, they all result in different, often mixed-up, conclusions: 1. Yes, it is. 2. No, not for this particular case. On 'I'm Not in Love' the idea was to deliberately build up a harmonic background which would sound ethereal, and multi-tracking was a good way of achieving that effect. 'Bo Rhap' was a matter of emulating a large choir ... in the sense of making it sound 'as if' there were over a hundred people. It's not the same case: getting the three of them to sing a single part (which, again, did not happen for every single one of them) made sense as they blended and gave it a nice rich sound. Double-tracking that sound also made sense in order to make it sound bigger. Triple-tracking it would be just about right. Any more than that would be merely wasting time and reducing the sound quality because of all the bouncing ... and it wouldn't have sounded any bigger. 3. Everything points at 'no.' Most bits (such as 'very very frightening me' and 'Beelzebub' and so on) would barely have more than twenty, some bits would have far less (the 'Galileo' bit is just three voices), others would probably peak around 50 or 60. Not even close to 138 (which was the figure given once by either Brian or Roger), or 160 (taken out of context from what Fred said), or 180 (the usual figure, again taken out of context from what Fred said) or 200 (taken out of context from what Fred said). It was merely a hyperbole. 4. No, that didn't happen either: Fred stated they were *recreating* a 160- to 200- choir *effect*. That's where the legend was born: 180 is the arithmetic mean between 160 and 200 (160 + 200 = 360, which divided by two equals 180). But what Fred said (and that audio interview's been officially released a number of times, so it's not a matter of broken telephone or a misquote) is, again, that they were making it sound *as it* it had that amount of voices. Brian made his guitar sound *as if* it were a clarinet, or a trumpet, or a tuba, etc., yet it does not mean he physically blew on his guitar and played it as a brass or woodwind instrument. Of course, the powers that be soon found out the '180 voices' legend was great publicity, so even they started repeating it. Repeat a lie enough times and, for many people, it becomes the truth ... or it becomes politics ... or religion ... or misguided and misleading journalism. |
| dysan 22.01.2017 15:18 |
Maybe I should post this in CMI's Fan mix Jazz thread, but here goes. I remember by phone earphone socket broke when I was walking along listening to Jazz maybe 5 years ago. It's was crackling and dropping out but I persevered and it did the most weird thing - actually isolated some instruments and stems. I skipped back and forth through tracks and yep it was filtering the music and breaking down into random part. The most notable thing was the vocal intro to FBG. It picked out a totally new harmony line that a) I'd never heard before b) couldn't possibly have imagine existed in that melody. I listened to it over and over and REALLY wish I'd somehow recorded to preserve it. Really weird. Been meaning to mention that on here since. That's all. |
| mooghead 22.01.2017 15:37 |
If you pull out the headphone socket a little bit it can create out of phase stereo, which means you hear the stereo parts and nothing coming down the middle. It was a revelation to me too. Long Away lost the complete vocal track. |
| dysan 22.01.2017 16:29 |
I was trying to work it out but couldn't recreate it on protools. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 22.01.2017 17:37 |
^^^ Seb, without getting into truth of the 180 voices, or actual number of tracks I stated I believe it's in the realm of possibility. Certainly could be overstated, but is the 10cc "INIL" 6000+ voices thing absurd too, or does the way they did it make sense to get to that total? My point is BR could be more than 300 voices, no one was counting, could be 24 voices but the 180 is plausible. Sweet Lady had at least 10 "guitars" or tracks with harmonies and rhythm and lead and BR was far more intricate in vocals, although Sweet Lady is genius. It's math and I'm not smart enough to count to 180 :) |
| Sebastian 22.01.2017 18:20 |
Of course it's in the realm of possibility that you can make them add up to 180 depending on how you count... but, as stated many, many, many times, there's no solid evidence pointing at that figure. It was taken out of context from a quote by Fred and then a legend was born. Other than wishful thinking, there's absolutely no evidence for it and, as explained above, it's a completely different case to 'I'm Not in Love' since they were going after a different effect. Two possibilities are not necessarily equally probable. It's, theoretically, within the realms of possibility that New Zealand win the next World Cup by beating each team exactly 22 - 0 with each player scoring exactly two goals, including the keeper ... but it's far, far, far, far, far more probable that that won't be the case. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 22.01.2017 22:43 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Ahhh...obviously I was unaware of all of this. I knew Roger liked to party and have a good time but had never heard or read(that I can remember) of him using drugs. LOL...Freddie was a different story entirely, of course! I thought it was just booze and women...and then there is that interview where he said he was never one for drugs and even marijuana made him sick. He seems like the kind of guy who would readily own up to his past excesses and even laugh about them.PrimeJiveUSA wrote: I have never read anywhere about Roger using drugs. The only interview I have seen him address the issue is one where he said he was "never one for drugs" and that he tried marijuana ONCE and it made him sick.It's definitely no secret that Freddie and Roger enjoyed their Colombian marching powder on the road. Queen wisely never wanted to be seen as a drug band, as it certainly never got in the way of their shows - but there are plenty of stories from road crew (and even the band members) saying how the excess got out of control by a certain point. There's a 2005ish magazine (I wish I remembered which one) where an anonymous crew member speaks out about all this. He said it hit a point where the show wouldn't start until the goods showed up. |
| tomchristie22 23.01.2017 05:03 |
dysan wrote: Maybe I should post this in CMI's Fan mix Jazz thread, but here goes. I remember by phone earphone socket broke when I was walking along listening to Jazz maybe 5 years ago. It's was crackling and dropping out but I persevered and it did the most weird thing - actually isolated some instruments and stems. I skipped back and forth through tracks and yep it was filtering the music and breaking down into random part. The most notable thing was the vocal intro to FBG. It picked out a totally new harmony line that a) I'd never heard before b) couldn't possibly have imagine existed in that melody. I listened to it over and over and REALLY wish I'd somehow recorded to preserve it. Really weird. Been meaning to mention that on here since. That's all.I had similar moments while listening to c_matt's altered mixes of '39 - there's a really unusual harmony on "write your letters..." which jumps all over the place, sung by Brian. It's pretty cool - effectively inaudible on the Roy Thomas Baker mix. |
| The Real Wizard 23.01.2017 16:39 |
tomchristie22 wrote:Pretty sure you can hear that in the 5.1 mix, too.dysan wrote: Maybe I should post this in CMI's Fan mix Jazz thread, but here goes. I remember by phone earphone socket broke when I was walking along listening to Jazz maybe 5 years ago. It's was crackling and dropping out but I persevered and it did the most weird thing - actually isolated some instruments and stems. I skipped back and forth through tracks and yep it was filtering the music and breaking down into random part. The most notable thing was the vocal intro to FBG. It picked out a totally new harmony line that a) I'd never heard before b) couldn't possibly have imagine existed in that melody. I listened to it over and over and REALLY wish I'd somehow recorded to preserve it. Really weird. Been meaning to mention that on here since. That's all.I had similar moments while listening to c_matt's altered mixes of '39 - there's a really unusual harmony on "write your letters..." which jumps all over the place, sung by Brian. It's pretty cool - effectively inaudible on the Roy Thomas Baker mix. |
| Sebastian 24.01.2017 06:11 |
Yes, you can. I really like Brian's falsetto. It sound smooth. There are a few songs where it's actually him doing those falsetto bits together with, or instead, of Roger or Frederick, and the sound is quite interesting. |
| tomchristie22 24.01.2017 06:49 |
Freddie & Brian both wrote some really clever vocal harmonies ("beware the storm that gathers here" in Prophet's Song intro is another neat, slightly unexpected one that comes to mind). In many of the same instances, a less inventive band would've just sung parallel 3rds. Queen really were the masters of vocal harmony, both in writing and delivery.
Sebastian wrote: I really like Brian's falsetto. It sound smooth. There are a few songs where it's actually him doing those falsetto bits together with, or instead, of Roger or Frederick, and the sound is quite interesting.I was listening to the Smile material for the first time in a while the other day. I noticed that the three part harmony in the chorus is arranged like so - from lowest to highest, it's Tim, Roger, Brian, with Brian singing the high line in his falsetto. Similarly, in the verses, when the backing "aahs" come in, Brian falsettos the higher part and Roger sings the lower. It's not the obvious configuration - pretty unusual for Brian to be singing above Roger. But it works really nicely, thanks to Brian's falsetto having such a sweet sound to it. It's wistful and slightly ethereal - perfectly suited to the song, basically. I've always rated those Smile songs - gorgeous stuff. If only the mixes weren't so muddy... though I think that's part of the charm. Anyway, we're now well off topic. |
| chromant 24.01.2017 07:24 |
Posting just to say that this is a really nice and insightful thread, thanks to everybody involved. P.S. I'm curious about the rude response given on brianmay.com. Maybe you could try with internet wayback machine on archive.org |
| mike hunt 24.01.2017 08:40 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote:From I read, Roger was a big drinker, even spent the night in Jail after a night of drinking. Never heard of him using coke.The Real Wizard wrote:Ahhh...obviously I was unaware of all of this. I knew Roger liked to party and have a good time but had never heard or read(that I can remember) of him using drugs. LOL...Freddie was a different story entirely, of course! I thought it was just booze and women...and then there is that interview where he said he was never one for drugs and even marijuana made him sick. He seems like the kind of guy who would readily own up to his past excesses and even laugh about them.PrimeJiveUSA wrote: I have never read anywhere about Roger using drugs. The only interview I have seen him address the issue is one where he said he was "never one for drugs" and that he tried marijuana ONCE and it made him sick.It's definitely no secret that Freddie and Roger enjoyed their Colombian marching powder on the road. Queen wisely never wanted to be seen as a drug band, as it certainly never got in the way of their shows - but there are plenty of stories from road crew (and even the band members) saying how the excess got out of control by a certain point. There's a 2005ish magazine (I wish I remembered which one) where an anonymous crew member speaks out about all this. He said it hit a point where the show wouldn't start until the goods showed up. |
| Vocal harmony 24.01.2017 09:26 |
mike hunt wrote:. . . . . Roger was a big drinker, even spent the night in Jail after a night of drinking. Never heard of him using coke. I think the insane tempo of some of the 79/80 gigs may have little to do with what Roger was drinking and more do do with the length of the mirror ?? |
| Dim 24.01.2017 12:59 |
My personal opinion is that with the Jazz, they wanted to trying new things along with their trademark Queen sounds. After ANATO, ADATR and NOTW, Jazz has all the Queen classic sound inserted into different style songs, like fbg, let me entertainment you, dsmn, etc. The problem is that the used the old production tricks on new studios, than the studio the were used to. So the album had many problems in the mix. It sounds dull, blur, much EQ. It lost its freshness and its expectations. |
| The Real Wizard 24.01.2017 15:40 |
Vocal harmony wrote:Ha ha !! Zing.mike hunt wrote: . . . . . Roger was a big drinker, even spent the night in Jail after a night of drinking. Never heard of him using coke.I think the insane tempo of some of the 79/80 gigs may have little to do with what Roger was drinking and more do do with the length of the mirror ?? |
| The Ghost of Lester Burnham 17.11.2017 02:00 |
Is there any way anyone can reupload the images in this thread? Whenever I click on the link, it takes me to an error page. Thanks in advance! |
| GT 17.11.2017 08:53 |
If any album deserves a 40th Anniversary edition it is 'Jazz'. At the time and even now, it is overshadowed by NOTW and The Game in both musical appeal and success. There are many demos and work in progress recordings that deserve to be heard. |
| dysan 17.11.2017 09:13 |
I love Jazz. I've probably said earlier in the thread that I feel the sum of it's parts feels less than what the best bits deserve. |
| cmi 01.10.2019 14:08 |
Does anyone can re-share this photo of paper with handwritten Jazz track lists which features 'Don't Say No' track? Photo was taken at the Stormtrooper Exhibition. Thanks. |
| dysan 01.10.2019 16:45 |
Here you go sweet nips: |
| cmi 01.10.2019 17:13 |
Thanks a lot! As I remember there were two photos of two different track lists, right? |
| cmsdrums 01.10.2019 17:13 |
Is it just a working title for ‘In Only Seven Days’? |
| dysan 01.10.2019 17:18 |
cmsdrums wrote: Is it just a working title for ‘In Only Seven Days’?I think that's the conclusion we reached yes |
| dysan 01.10.2019 17:18 |
cmi wrote: Thanks a lot! As I remember there were two photos of two different track lists, right?Maybe |
| cmi 01.10.2019 18:19 |
That's it, yes. |