| fras444 19.06.2018 22:50 |
How did Queen record their songs in studio? How was a song produced from beginning to end? Did it come from an idea a member brought then a jam would result or was it more structured or more laid out in mind to then for arguments sake Bohem Rhap, where Freddie organised what goes where (was this a one of or were most songs made this way by the respected member?) and ULTIMATELY... When the end product was made how was it then put on to album as in, was the song played by the members in its entirety (instrument wise) then for the respected lead vocalist to sing the parts or was the whole final process like a live rehearsing, everyone plays and sings and that's what we get? I could imagine that the vocal overdubs were laid down after the entire song was produced? What are some myths and truths regarding behind the scenes Queen in studio???? |
| The Real Wizard 19.06.2018 23:23 |
This is a pretty deep rabbit hole. There are tidbits we've learned from interviews, articles, and the bits of audio and video that have popped up that have helped provide a few answers. Generally they wrote separately, and the song was presented to the band. They'd refine the parts as a group, and regardless of who composed what, the writer of the lyrics was credited with the song (through 1986, of course). And with the exception of News Of The World, they usually would have rehearsed extensively and known their parts cold before tracking in the studio. But sometimes there were jams, as heard on the Get Down Make Love outtake released on the box set last year. Here the song is just a basic idea, and they're just getting into the vibe of it while the tape is rolling. Their vocal harmonies often required long and tedious sessions. Mary Austin once remarked that seeing the band live was far more preferable, as an entire day in the studio would yield 30 seconds of music. And yes - most bands tend to do instrumental backing tracks first, and the lead vocal is the last thing done. An earlier take will often have a guide vocal, just so the band will know where they are in the song, but the words often aren't finished. For the final tracks in 1991, Mercury laid down three takes of every line, as he knew he wouldn't survive to see the song through to its final stages - but that's an anomaly. Some songs went through many revisions. Keep Yourself Alive on the debut album is actually the third studio version of the song. There are actually six, if we include the two BBC versions. I could go on forever, so I'll leave it there for now ! |
| fras444 20.06.2018 00:21 |
Brilliant source of knowledge mate.. You and Seb Thanks. I definitely find the whole 'studio/behind the scenes Queens world' so intriguing especially with the whole 'the writer all but composed the whole song...' nd wondering what input did the others have and are there infact, some uncredited input from the others pre 86. Insight into this world seems so mysterious in a sense, as not much has been released or spoken by the four about the process of making a song apart from a handful of songs such as the infamous Bo Rap So... When it came to the final product was the song then played in its entirety with record switched on, for arguments sake. March of the Black Queen, When it was ready for the album did all four get into the recording room and play the whole song in one go and that's what we hear on QII? are there any songs that we actually listen to 'a take' or are they almost all just instruments then vocals laid down separately |
| fras444 20.06.2018 00:36 |
Over the many years being on this forum, as much as Queen are an amazing band live and what we also got in studio, they were never really a band people might or would like to think and believe. A band like Led Zep or pink Floyd, where there is this creative juice that flows and the whole band comes together and helps produce, create and jam out songs in a sense, both in studio and live. But that's what gives Queen that edge, they are/were a very precise and very well measured band that did give consistency both in their studio albums which then flowed through to their on stage performance ( Which you Bob, I think you mentioned was Led Zeps downfall if you like, that too long a jam on stage kinda lost the song especially during the mid 70s with Led Zep) although it would be awesome to see how far a creative force in Queen would have gone, on stage and those jam sessions on stage in the late 70s during Brighton rock, also where the combined creative force that, 'well'... led to the 30 odd songs that could have been during the Miracle sessions.... |
| The Real Wizard 20.06.2018 02:24 |
fras444 wrote: I definitely find the whole 'studio/behind the scenes Queens world' so intriguing especially with the whole 'the writer all but composed the whole song...' nd wondering what input did the others have and are there infact, some uncredited input from the others pre 86.Take "You And I" for example. It clearly has the musical fingerprints of all four members, but it's still credited to Deacon. It's just the way they chose to take care of business, as it was pretty unusual to have a band where everyone was a strong writer. |
| The Real Wizard 20.06.2018 02:29 |
fras444 wrote: Insight into this world seems so mysterious in a sense, as not much has been released or spoken by the four about the process of making a song apart from a handful of songs such as the infamous Bo RapA lot of the old bands were like that. Mystique has a currency value as much as knowledge. Some would argue it's even greater. Today they're opening up more now that it's all in the past, but in the moment their methods were their secret to their success. There's a good reason why most answers in interviews are evasive or incomplete. Most Queen interviews are terribly boring and tedious to listen to or read. But now and again you get a tidbit, and you learn something new. But without a doubt, their strategy to reveal little was a very conscious one. The final product is all they want people to hear. Their process is their own, and what happens in the band stays in the band. |
| Biggus Dickus 20.06.2018 03:52 |
"Mary Austin once remarked that seeing the band live was far more preferable, as an entire day in the studio would yield 30 seconds of music." I don't think it was Mary. I remember this exact quote from the DOOL documentary, and it was some other woman who said it. |
| ANAGRAMER 20.06.2018 07:10 |
It was Rosemary Horide I think |
| The Real Wizard 20.06.2018 13:25 |
Yeesss, you're both right ! Good catch. |
| Star* 20.06.2018 14:42 |
Ultimately the writer of the song had the last word as to what he wanted, so with Bohemian Rhapsody Freddie had the last say. We all know Queen bickered and fought in the studios and as Freddie once said "were the bitchiest band in the universe darling" ! |
| matt z 20.06.2018 21:05 |
I'll add a TRUTH... WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS was conceived as a NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH, to the non believers in (Fred mostly, but also) the band. It is SELF EVIDENT... NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH.... WE ARE THE CHAM-PIONS (5 syllable pattern of disdain) prob wrote the melody afterward. |
| Apocalipsis_Darko 20.06.2018 23:22 |
who is Rosemary Horide? |
| The Real Wizard 21.06.2018 04:51 |
Apocalipsis_Darko wrote: who is Rosemary Horide?She reviewed the band a few times in the early days. link link And she was overly kind because she really liked them. |
| Star* 21.06.2018 06:48 |
Rosemary Horide? Is she from the gutter press then? |
| Apocalipsis_Darko 21.06.2018 08:03 |
Thanks Bob. Next week I will send you a mail. |
| fras444 29.06.2018 00:00 |
Was Queen a very productive band when it cameto the amount of songs brought to studio time. With each album from Q1 through to Innuendo. Was there much in the way of material left over and was there a difference between queen as a combined creative force Q1 (seperate songs but a joint collaberation) and TM Innuendo vs QII-AKOM as a individual songwriter.. Could there have been more albums in the tank? |
| OhioMustapha 29.06.2018 01:43 |
I know when they were making dead on time, Paul Prenter gave Freddie cocaine and speed so that he could sing so fast. |
| Vocal harmony 29.06.2018 14:24 |
OhioMustapha wrote: I know when they were making dead on time, Paul Prenter gave Freddie cocaine and speed so that he could sing so fast.However he did a good job on Stone Cold Crazy without Prenter. . |
| The Real Wizard 01.07.2018 18:36 |
fras444 wrote: Was Queen a very productive band when it cameto the amount of songs brought to studio time. With each album from Q1 through to Innuendo. Was there much in the way of material left over and was there a difference between queen as a combined creative force Q1 (seperate songs but a joint collaberation) and TM Innuendo vs QII-AKOM as a individual songwriter.. Could there have been more albums in the tank?Only the band know how much material was left over. But as with most artists, the best material tends to be the material they release. And sometimes songs are revisited later, like Sheer Heart Attack and We Are The Champions. |
| Star* 01.07.2018 19:20 |
They always keep the best material for a rainy day i think. just look at "let me in your heart again" a great track which was finally released and is a great track but unheard for years. I think in time "i guess were falling out" may see the light of day! |
| Sebastian 01.07.2018 20:56 |
It's not a great track at all. It's a lacklustre track with great singing and great guitar playing, that's it. |
| Star* 01.07.2018 21:09 |
Lacklustre i dont think so, if that was the case Brian John and Roger would not have worked on that track at all. |
| Sebastian 01.07.2018 22:42 |
Why? Would the universe implode? Was there any contractual obligation they were under that strictly forbade them from working on lacklustre compositions? |
| The Real Wizard 02.07.2018 02:43 |
Sebastian wrote: It's not a great track at all. It's a lacklustre track with great singing and great guitar playing, that's it....which is still a hell of a lot better than Man On The Prowl. Far from their best, it's still a pretty good track with a lot more of the "classic" Queen sound than much of what they churned out in that period. But considering how similar it was to It's A Hard Life and is definitely the inferior of the two, I can see why it was left off the album. |
| Star* 02.07.2018 13:45 |
Well it may have been left of the album but in my opinion it was a huge mistake to do that. "Man on the prowl" had roots of Crazy little thing all over it, but it was very boring. "Let me in your heart again" was a brilliant track and with the ultimate Queen trade mark about it. Freddies vocals were awesome too. |
| emrabt 02.07.2018 14:51 |
I think there's probably quite a few covers in the archives, stuff from the 50's, 60's and 70's from bands they grew up with, even if it's just warm up songs rather than anything intended for release.. |
| matt z 09.07.2018 14:38 |
I've always heard WHITESNAKES "here i go again" in that song. It doesn't lack luster, but it's certainly not very good. Many better "inspired by" copies like "KPTOW", "breakthru" |
| aprilrussell 19.07.2018 02:52 |
Ultimately the writer of the song had the last word as to what he wanted, so with Bohemian Rhapsody Freddie had the last say. We all know Queen bickered and fought in the studios and as Freddie once said "were the bitchiest band in the universe darling" ! ______________________ run 3 online |
| john bodega 19.07.2018 06:21 |
"considering how similar it was to It's A Hard Life" Really? I'd have called it an up-tempo Save Me if anything! Hard Life had too many Freddie-style direction changes, sort of like a song-length version of the ballad bits of Bohemian Rhapsody. |