| SergeantPepperDG 26.06.2004 12:29 |
I don't understand how Queen gets such a full, operatic sound when they sing, because there are only 4 members (and sometimes only 3, when they are just doing backups for Freddie). It almost sounds like they have a full choir. It's really cool. I'm also wondering, who has that really falsetto voice? You know in "Bohemian Rhapsody" when the sing "Beezlebub has a devil put aside for me, for me, for meeeeeeeeeeeeee!" during the "meeeeeeeeeee" someone there has an EXTREMELY high voice. I thought it might be Roger, cause in the video, when they are singing "Galileo," Roger is doing the high one, and Freddie is doing the low one. |
| SergeantPepperDG 26.06.2004 12:35 |
Oh yeah... Now I feel stupid... |
| -fatty- 2850 26.06.2004 12:36 |
Barry's right.They use multi-track tapes to acheive that sound. You can buy multi-track tape from most music shops and they cost about £4.99 a roll. You stick the tape over the microphone and when you sing into it, the tape vibrates and gives you that Queen sound. fatty. |
| Lisser 26.06.2004 12:40 |
Ya I got some at Best Buy the other day. It works, it really works! *cheezy commercial smile* |
| Deaky's Middle Nut 26.06.2004 13:32 |
I bought a roll of that same multi-track tape at Walgreens. Did you know that that crap dosen't work worth a damn on Christmas presents? Works OK on some of the other gifts, you know, birthdays, bar-mitvahs, Halloween, making the high school Buggering team, for defecating in a mall, those types of gifts. But Christmas gifts, FORGET IT! The stuff is useless!!! |
| Penis - Vagina 26.06.2004 16:57 |
fatty wrote: Barry's right.They use multi-track tapes to acheive that sound. You can buy multi-track tape from most music shops and they cost about £4.99 a roll. You stick the tape over the microphone and when you sing into it, the tape vibrates and gives you that Queen sound. fatty.Haha, that's the first truly funny thing I've ever heard you say fatty. Well done :) |
| FriedChicken 27.06.2004 02:51 |
because there are only 4 members. 3 singers though |
| Farlander 27.06.2004 04:42 |
Yes, three singers - John never sang. And the one with the super high voice is indeed Roger. |
| Sebastian 27.06.2004 09:27 |
John said in 1982 that "Most vocals are by Brian, Freddie and Roger. I don't participate very often". That's very different to never. And most is very diffferent to all. But anyway... I think the 200 voices quote is an exaggeration. So are the "20 guitars in Millionaire Waltz, doing different things, with different colors...", and the whole "guitar orchestra" labels put a lot in the early albums. Not to mention the "157 synthesisers" in 'Fun In Space' 200 voices - Fred said that in 1977, but it could have just been a random number. Same when Roger said "138" some time. Brian calculated 180 voices by multiplying 20 (apparently there were 20 voices doing each part) for 9 (the harmony had apparently 9 part). Now, 'Bo Rhap' hardly ever goes beyond 4 or 5 five part. The only sub-section with 9 part is the last "for me". But you can note the lowest part is done only once (thanks to DTS channels), so is Roger's high Bb and Freddie's high Ab. So that leaves 6 parts that were actually multi-tracked. The high F (can be heard easier in the karaoke version, or in DTS surround channels) is certainly one voice too, or perhaps there's a slight chance that there are two (i.e. double tracked Roger). The remaining five parts were probably done as Brian said in the commentary (the three of them recorded each line three times and then recorded the next one). If that's true, then it'd be 45 voices plus the 5 mentioned before: 50. But I doubt Brian participated in the high D, in that one there'd be only Roger and Freddie. So that lowers 3 voices. 47. Or well, let's say Brian also sang the D4. 50. But anyway that's very very very different to 138, 180 or 200. And that's only the most "crowded" part. "Scaramouche..." is barely more than 6 voices (three-part of double tracked Freddies). 157 Synthesisers in Fun In Space: A synth costed several thousand dollars in that time. An OBX like the one Roger had (the one used for The Game, Flash, Gluttons tour) costed about 10 thousand dollars. The first Fairlight in 1978 costed 180 thousand dollars. So I don't think anyone in his right mind would spend more than a million dollars worth in synths. And if Roger did, then he would be called by Brian a "synth collector" and not a "guitar collector". But even if Rog had the money or the intention of having that number of synths, back in 1981 it's very unlikely that there were even 150 synths at all. But perhaps he just threw that line and a random number to parody the "no synth" mark of the first five queen albums. As for super high voice - Roger didn't sing higher than Freddie. The thing is that the voice color needed for that part corresponds more to Roger. Roger could do a soprano more accurately since his transition between head and falsetto was smoother. Fred could sing the intro of '39, My Fairy King or In The Lap Of The Gods (they're all lower notes than what he did in 'Rock In Rio Blues') but Roger's voice fitted much better the sound required. in fact Fred does the same A4 (the highest note of Lap Of the Gods, My Fairy King and '39) in You Take My Breath Away, but that's because the effect needed was that. Fred is more "angelical", Roger is more "operatic" in those overhigh notes. What Brian showed in the "very very frightening me" part saying it was the three of them is actually a double tracked Fred. So he did reach the same note, but in the album cut the take used is Roger's, you can notice the difference. Fred's timbre was more bell-like, which would work fine for a tune like Leroy Brown. But in the case of Bo Rhap (and Lap Of The Gods and some others) what they needed was a hoarser voice, that would be more "desperate" and raw at the time he sang those notes, and it gave it an operatic touch. That's why Roger did them. |
| Lord Blackadder 27.06.2004 09:31 |
Listen to Tutti Frutti and Baby I Don't care from live at Wembley, on most of that only Freddie and Roger are singing and i think it sounds like about 6/7 people. |
| Adam Baboolal 27.06.2004 10:27 |
Where did the synths talk come from in this thread? And is the quote talking literally? Don't think so... Peace, Adam. |
| SergeantPepperDG 27.06.2004 12:12 |
Sebastian wrote: John said in 1982 that "Most vocals are by Brian, Freddie and Roger. I don't participate very often". That's very different to never. And most is very diffferent to all. But anyway... I think the 200 voices quote is an exaggeration. So are the "20 guitars in Millionaire Waltz, doing different things, with different colors...", and the whole "guitar orchestra" labels put a lot in the early albums. Not to mention the "157 synthesisers" in 'Fun In Space' 200 voices - Fred said that in 1977, but it could have just been a random number. Same when Roger said "138" some time. Brian calculated 180 voices by multiplying 20 (apparently there were 20 voices doing each part) for 9 (the harmony had apparently 9 part). Now, 'Bo Rhap' hardly ever goes beyond 4 or 5 five part. The only sub-section with 9 part is the last "for me". But you can note the lowest part is done only once (thanks to DTS channels), so is Roger's high Bb and Freddie's high Ab. So that leaves 6 parts that were actually multi-tracked. The high F (can be heard easier in the karaoke version, or in DTS surround channels) is certainly one voice too, or perhaps there's a slight chance that there are two (i.e. double tracked Roger). The remaining five parts were probably done as Brian said in the commentary (the three of them recorded each line three times and then recorded the next one). If that's true, then it'd be 45 voices plus the 5 mentioned before: 50. But I doubt Brian participated in the high D, in that one there'd be only Roger and Freddie. So that lowers 3 voices. 47. Or well, let's say Brian also sang the D4. 50. But anyway that's very very very different to 138, 180 or 200. And that's only the most "crowded" part. "Scaramouche..." is barely more than 6 voices (three-part of double tracked Freddies). 157 Synthesisers in Fun In Space: A synth costed several thousand dollars in that time. An OBX like the one Roger had (the one used for The Game, Flash, Gluttons tour) costed about 10 thousand dollars. The first Fairlight in 1978 costed 180 thousand dollars. So I don't think anyone in his right mind would spend more than a million dollars worth in synths. And if Roger did, then he would be called by Brian a "synth collector" and not a "guitar collector". But even if Rog had the money or the intention of having that number of synths, back in 1981 it's very unlikely that there were even 150 synths at all. But perhaps he just threw that line and a random number to parody the "no synth" mark of the first five queen albums. As for super high voice - Roger didn't sing higher than Freddie. The thing is that the voice color needed for that part corresponds more to Roger. Roger could do a soprano more accurately since his transition between head and falsetto was smoother. Fred could sing the intro of '39, My Fairy King or In The Lap Of The Gods (they're all lower notes than what he did in 'Rock In Rio Blues') but Roger's voice fitted much better the sound required. in fact Fred does the same A4 (the highest note of Lap Of the Gods, My Fairy King and '39) in You Take My Breath Away, but that's because the effect needed was that. Fred is more "angelical", Roger is more "operatic" in those overhigh notes. What Brian showed in the "very very frightening me" part saying it was the three of them is actually a double tracked Fred. So he did reach the same note, but in the album cut the take used is Roger's, you can notice the difference. Fred's timbre was more bell-like, which would work fine for a tune like Leroy Brown. But in the case of Bo Rhap (and Lap Of The Gods and some others) what they needed was a hoarser voice, that would be more "desperate" and raw at the time he sang those notes, and it gave it an operatic touch. That's why Roger did them.Er... thank you. |
| deleted user 27.06.2004 18:26 |
<But perhaps he just threw that line and a random number to parody the "no synth" mark of the first five queen albums.> I wouldn't so much say "perhaps", but rather "pretty damn definitely" ;) |
| chancelloramethyst 28.06.2004 02:31 |
SergeantPepperDG wrote:Sebastian wrote: John said in 1982 that "Most vocals are by Brian, Freddie and Roger. I don't participate very often". That's very different to never. And most is very diffferent to all. But anyway... |
| Farlander 28.06.2004 03:27 |
Sebastian wrote: John said in 1982 that "Most vocals are by Brian, Freddie and Roger. I don't participate very often". That's very different to never. And most is very diffferent to all. But anyway...I can believe he sang live with his mic turned way way down, but his voice is clearly absent in the studio recordings. As for super high voice - Roger didn't sing higher than Freddie.The hell he didn't. Brian says flat out on the Bo Rhap part of GVHI that Roger had the highest voice. Whether his top notes are ever actually used in a recording doesn't matter. Freddie clearly struggled at pitches where Roger did not. By the time Roger got to that same level of struggle, Freddie would not have been able to sing those notes at all. |
| Sebastian 28.06.2004 05:56 |
So much to answer but anyway... Yeah I know nobody mentioned synths, but in the case you haven't noticed, I enjoy long posts. And that doesn't mean I don't have time, the whole "getting laid" comment is way out of context, so I'll just ignore it John's exact quote is "In the albums, Roger, Freddie and Brian do most of the vocal harmonies. I don't participate very often. On stage I do very little backing vocals ,but I can't call myself a singer". So there you go, MAINLY is not ALL, and NOT VERY OFTEN is not NEVER There's another nice comment about that, made by him in 1976. About Roy Thomas Baker and that he "recorded our vocals over fifty times". Keyword: OUR, not THEIR. But in that case by "our" he could have meant "Queen vocals" or "the band's vocals" and not neccesarily implied that he sung. But in the other he said he did, not very often but that's not a 0% anyway Roger vs Freddie: I don't see Fred struggling for notes Roger could reach "easily". Roger had many problems in Lap Of the Gods and '39 (except in Rainbow, but that one might be an overdub). Note Lap Of the Gods in '75 concerts, his voice could hit the notes but not so easily as in the studio version. Same as '39, all the times I've heard it live (except the one from Live Killers which might also be overdubbed) he missed the last note, he just took off the mic before he did it. And that note is lower than the one Fred did in 'Rock In Rio Blues'. Roger sang very high with an open throat in the recordings of 'Tie Your mother down' (the last "all your love toNIGHT"), and it sounds great, but it's the same note Fred did in 'Hang On In There', which he didn't struggle for either. On stage Roger got the high part in We Are the Champions most likely because Fred "oxided" his voice much more, he didn't take care of it. Moreover Fred sang during all the concert and Roger just in the choruses and I'm In Love With My Car. That gets it a lot less tired for the high C in 'Champions'. But that doesn't mean Roger could sing higher. that doesn't mean he couldn't either. I'm almost sure their ranges ended up in the same note, or if not, the difference would be just one semitone. |
| Farlander 28.06.2004 14:49 |
"John's exact quote is "In the albums, Roger, Freddie and Brian do most of the vocal harmonies. I don't participate very often. On stage I do very little backing vocals ,but I can't call myself a singer". So there you go, MAINLY is not ALL, and NOT VERY OFTEN is not NEVER" And there are a half dozen quotes you could easily dig up that say he never sings on the albums. Maybe he sang on the albums, but those takes were not used in the final mixes. Otherwise, point out to me one place in one Queen song where you can identify a voice that is not Freddie's, Brian's, or Rogers. "Roger vs Freddie: I don't see Fred struggling for notes Roger could reach "easily". Roger had many problems in Lap Of the Gods and '39 (except in Rainbow, but that one might be an overdub). Note Lap Of the Gods in '75 concerts, his voice could hit the notes but not so easily as in the studio version. Same as '39, all the times I've heard it live (except the one from Live Killers which might also be overdubbed) he missed the last note, he just took off the mic before he did it. And that note is lower than the one Fred did in 'Rock In Rio Blues'. Roger sang very high with an open throat in the recordings of 'Tie Your mother down' (the last "all your love toNIGHT"), and it sounds great, but it's the same note Fred did in 'Hang On In There', which he didn't struggle for either. On stage Roger got the high part in We Are the Champions most likely because Fred "oxided" his voice much more, he didn't take care of it. Moreover Fred sang during all the concert and Roger just in the choruses and I'm In Love With My Car. That gets it a lot less tired for the high C in 'Champions'. But that doesn't mean Roger could sing higher. that doesn't mean he couldn't either. I'm almost sure their ranges ended up in the same note, or if not, the difference would be just one semitone." The bottom line is that Brian flat out said Roger had a higher voice, and I think he would know. If you refuse to accept that and you cannot hear the greater strain Freddie's voice at pitches where Roger has none, then there is no force on earth that will convince you. |
| deleted user 28.06.2004 15:24 |
One should also take into consideration that saying "mainly" instead of "all" (and the like) could have been a mere rhetorical thing. It really seems to be the way John talks about most things (in interviews at least). |
| frejorobri 29.06.2004 04:26 |
That's true, but what about Freddie's Opera in Barcelona? There are some parts where you think it's Montsy-It's actually Freddie. It's amazing. |
| Bohardy 29.06.2004 04:36 |
And also it's possible that when John made his comment about not participating vocally very often, he was thinking about things he (possibly) featured in such as the big singalong at the end of SSOR, all the chat at the end of LMEY, and possible the huge chorus at the end of ITLOTG(R). Featuring vocally in sections such as these is a far cry from being a key element of some of the very precise Queen harmonies, as Seb seems to think John was. |
| Daburcor? 29.06.2004 04:38 |
fatty wrote: Barry's right.They use multi-track tapes to acheive that sound. You can buy multi-track tape from most music shops and they cost about £4.99 a roll. You stick the tape over the microphone and when you sing into it, the tape vibrates and gives you that Queen sound. fatty.Fatty... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...That was great. :| |
| Sebastian 29.06.2004 07:43 |
Parts that aren't Fred, Brian or Roger - For example, the choruses in 'Rock It', checked with DTS, are obviously different people or themselves with vari-speed. But if there are more people, it's equally probable that it's john or the producers or whoever. Roger vs Fred - I'm not saying Brian is ignorant, but do you think Brian has taken the time to analyse Fred's impromptus and compare them with Roger's highest parts and notice who struggled and who didn't and then check the notes and who sang more than 880 Hz etc etc? No. I can assure you that the people in this forum are more likely to tell such details, because they, as Niek said once I believe, just write the songs, record them, rehearse them to play live (some of them), but that's it. They don't analyse them or make lists of "what's the song Fred sings highest on...". Something I noticed lately is that the hidden direct fore-runner to Bo Rhap is 'In The Lap Of The Gods' (not the revisited one). There are many details in common. But of course I doubt the band would take the time to transcribe each song's form and to figure out common aspects. Fred did point out though that 'Lap' did help him to write something like 'Bo Rhap', but anyway I personally think that he did "paraphrase" some parts in a subconscious level, not thinking of "I'm going to put 10 Lap trademarks in Bo rhap" or something to that effect. In the same way, I can assure you Brian, Roger or John know less about demos than half of the people in this forum. Or concert setlists. |
| Adam Baboolal 29.06.2004 10:06 |
"I can assure you Brian, Roger or John know less about demos than half of the people in this forum." Er...somehow I don't think so. Jeez Seb, just why? Who cares? Let it go. :) Peace, Adam. |
| Sebastian 29.06.2004 11:33 |
I want to continue this, if you don't want, don'T read further. I'm not fighting or anything, I just find it interesting. It's not that I dream about wheter My Fairy King has or doesn'T have higher notes than It's Late... I just like to analyse this things, as much as others like to collect bootlegs, or stamps or whatever. As for demos, a concrecte proof - Brian in 1998 was interviewed by Jazz web, didn't remember there's a version of Silver Salmon sung by Freddie. Didn't know about Assassin either. Recentely in his soapbox he has made other omisions - didn't remember about Mike Stone singing in Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy, counted Masterstroke as part of either Opera or Races, admitted he didn't remember they used to play Doin' All Right live. And it goes further: in a 1982 interview he said he played koto in 'Teo torriate'. And it makes sense. Brian probably recorded the koto in 'Prophet's Song' one night and that was, for him just another night. He didn't read or anlyse it, so if he forgets, he doesn't care. So a fan or a listener or an analist (and I don't consider myself any of those things) is a way better source to know about a band than the band itself. I don't mean Brian doesn't know in which album is Bo Rhap, or how many weeks it stayed in #1, but I mean that he most likely doesn't know in which concert he broke a string or in which song he sang higher or stuff like that. |
| Bohardy 29.06.2004 12:42 |
Yeah, but to say that you (or we) know better than Brian as to who had the naturally higher register out of Fred and Rog as absolutely absurd! No, Brian most probably doesn't sit there poring over every single harmony part, making bar-charts and venn-diagrams of the frequency and range of certain high notes sung by Rog and Fred. No, Brian probably doesn't know that (in the recordings available to fans) live Fred technically sang a higher note (by a semitone I believe) than Rog's best, or that in the studio they matched each other for the highest recorded head-voice note. But what Brian does know is what he's learned from playing nearly 800 gigs with the 2 of them (far more concerts than you/we have ever heard), from recording about 15 albums with the 2 of them, and from basically living, working, playing and singing with them for 20 years of his life. Bri's heard, in the flesh, Fred and Rog sing more times than anyone of us has had hot dinners. |
| deleted user 29.06.2004 13:51 |
To be fair, "Asassin" apparently really wasn't more than a tentative working-title under which an early demo of "Innuendo" was archived (correct me if I'm wrong). I'd been surprised if Brian had remembered that one. |
| Want To Live Forever 29.06.2004 16:30 |
1: Freddie, Roger and Brian were singing at the same time, the same phrase, at the same key. then, 2: sing at the same time, the same phrase, but in a diffrent key. 3: again, sing at the same time, the same phrase, but in a new diffrent key. after doing this, they put it all together to make a choir. this is diffrent from a live choir, for example, where every person sings at a diffrent key. What Queen did was the 3 singers singing exactly the same part at the same key identically as the other 2 singers to make a stronger voice. Comparing it to a live choir, Freddie, Roger and Brian were doing the part of one person at the same time, then they recorded the part of another person, and so on. at the end they put it all together making it sound like big choir. you can see this in QVH 1 related by Brian and with some examples. it´s really cool. |
| Sebastian 30.06.2004 05:51 |
Just a couple of notes: Same key is not correctly used in what you said. The key and the chord is the same, what changes is the note. For example Rog sang an A, Fred sang the F# below it and Brian sang the D below it, so it's a D chord. About Brian - The difference between Rog and Fred isn't so big (in either case Roger could get higher or Fred could get higher), so that can't be concluded without an anlysis. Different is if we compare Roger with Brian, you don't have to make diagrams or measure the Hz of their notes. Brian has heard Rog and Fred sing a lot of times, but 99.9% of them were notes of their "regular" range and not their limits, so he couldn't compare them. And in such cases - like any of them trying to do a D5 and not being able or something like that - I doubt he would write that in a diary or something. Maybe he just assumed, as well as Elton assumed Fred wrote the lyrics of 'Show Must Go On'. Maybe in fact they sometime decided to "compete" and Roger won and that's why Brian said so. Even in that case, that doesn't mean it'd be definitve. I mean, let's say they measured the range and Rog won by one semitone, in the year of '76. It's still possible that Fred acquired a bigger range in let's say, '81, or not neccesarily a bigger range, just a higher end, and then Fred could sing one tone above what he could in '76. Or perhaps in '87 Roger could sing not one but four semitones above Freddie. Etc etc. |
| Bohardy 30.06.2004 09:02 |
So the point you seem to be making then Seb, is that even if you do do an analysis of who sang the highest notes in any given year, or over a certain period, you would not really get a conclusive result with any real meaning. So in that case, is it not better to just trust one man's informed opinion about who generally had the naturally higher register, especially if that man is probably in a better position than anyone else alive (except maybe Roger himself) to make that judgment? |
| Adam Baboolal 30.06.2004 14:55 |
What I find funny is that Seb outlines the basic knowledge of harmony above and demonstrates it really badly with his BoRhap cover! But seriously, what annoys me about Seb's rantings are that they sound like a lawyer's attitude, e.g. quotes some minor errors of a persons recollection of something, therefore showing them up. Then correcting their mistake with the supposed truth. Peace, Adam. |
| Sebastian 30.06.2004 18:52 |
I don't try by any means to suggest or imply that what I say is the absolute truth or something like that. What I mean is that Brian isn't more informed than anyone of us about that, except in the case they actually did compete. As I said, most likely most of times he heard them, they were doing the notes they could reach easily, not the ones they'd struggle for, and even in those cases he wouldn't be there with a piano or something to measure them. For instance I always thought the screams of Lap Of The Gods were higher than the highest "for me", until I played each note on the piano together with the record and realised it was the other way around. So, what I mean is that Brian saying once that "he's got the highest voice" doesn't imply that it was always that way, or that it was that way anyway. As for Bo Rhap cover, it is well constructed, of course the production isn't the best or anything, and the voices are still weak. But the harmonies I arranged - as opposed to copy them from the original arrangement - were well done. On paper I mean. |
| Adam Baboolal 30.06.2004 22:40 |
"As for Bo Rhap cover, it is well constructed" HAH! The harmonies sounded erratic and lost. You even admitted that in the thread for the cover! "But the harmonies I arranged - as opposed to copy them from the original arrangement - were well done. On paper I mean" Eh? Like I said, they sounded lost and just plain weird. Scan your notes and post them. Maybe we'll record them and see what they're 'really' like. If what you say is true, that is. Getting harmonies right and getting them to sound right are two different things. :) Peace, Adam. |
| Sebastian 01.07.2004 06:41 |
The harmonies are good, the plan. I kind of did the whole version "in a hurry" because I wanted to make sure I could do it. Next time - in a couple of months or years, so I can really see evolution - my goal is to do it, and do it awesomely. But I don't have any rush in making the perfect version (by "perfect" I mean exactly how I want it), I can make 20 or 30 more re-takes if that's neccesary. Life's too short but it's wasted with hurries. Moreover, a one mile journey starts with one step. |
| KillerQueen840 01.07.2004 20:54 |
Roger's voice is the high, "Galileo." |
| high-flying-adored 05.07.2004 23:23 |
Let's just simply take into consideration the fact that both Roger and Fred drive us wild with their voices and thus make us consider all these things which ... apparently, we have a tussle trying to figure them out. Can't we settle this while singing along to Bo-Rhap or something? Have fun! Everything is so serious. (The jargon is killing my brain -- no more school, pleeeeeease.) Agh. I give up -- continue your "who-has-the-bigger-range" competition. It's rather funny to read. |
| deleted user 16.11.2005 15:15 |
Barry © wrote: They use multi-track tapes.And overdubs. But maybe that's the same thing... |
| John S Stuart 16.11.2005 18:15 |
I think Seb has some good ideas, and I also think he contributes well in Queenzone, but I really do think that most of his problems stem from a basic understanding of the English language. Seb: Would I be correct to suggest that English is your second language? The reason I ask this, is that you seem to be unable to distinguish between the literal and figurative, and you always appear to use figurative expressions to make literal points, and anyone familiar with English would know this is not the case. EG: "157 Synthesisers in Fun In Space... perhaps he just threw that line and a random number to parody the "no synth" mark of the first five queen albums." Most native English speakers would immediately know that this is a joke - it is a solo LP - as opposed to a Queen, no synths LP - and would not take it seriously, and would certainly NOT use this evidence to back up a "Roger used 150 synths" claim. Likewise, Brian could have been suggesting that Roger sang higher than Freddie on Bo Rhap (which he did). We can hear this with the naked ear on the "original" release, or better still on the 5.1 recordings. Finally, as a long standing Queen-fan, I have read literally hundreds of books, listened to hundreds of interviews, and also many unreleased demos. From that I can distill my information, and sometimes, I find that evidence does contradict itself. What I suggest for you is that you need MORE research, based on a broader and wider reading of the subject material, because, although what you say seems good, it still comes across as a "Survey of one" type of study. |
| Sebastian 16.11.2005 20:14 |
Nice revival of old topics. I grew up learning both English and Spanish at the same time... the FIS incident was more a matter of "not having anything better to do than searching the slightest line and discussing it"; I admit I'm often very annoying with those things, though I'm working on that and I suppose (rather than know) that you can tell easily by the posts I used to write in those times (the "how do they do it" era) and the ones I wrote in Autumn '05. I think (rather than ensure) I'm more open-minded in this moment. Of course there's a lot more to work on, I've never denied that. Enough of my bios anyway, and, not intending to argue with you whatosever, I find it extremely unfair from you to judge me just because of that incident. A misunderstanding can happen to virtually anybody in any case. Then if tomorrow I misunderstand a line in Spanish (which has happened A LOT to me, especially lately that I hardly ever speak it) would it mean that I don't know it either? Your point about Rog singing higher than Fred in Bo Rhap makes sense, but the fact I didn't point it out doesn't mean I "can't" understand figurative speech. Remember the old "track/take" confusion I had which was merely a matter of misreading or even - I admit - some sort of bias: we weren't exactly in the best terms in those days, therefore - again, I admit - I was predisposed in favour of controversy... those were the days of "Queen II in 4-tracks" and all of that. |
| John S Stuart 16.11.2005 21:02 |
Thanks for the reply Seb, but that's not really what I mean. You obviously grasp that I am not arguing with you, and you also seem to know that there is no animosity in my mail - but I just sometimes get the feeling that you miss the whole underlying point. I did not mean to revive old arguments, or suggest that you are not open minded. All I wanted to say was that I think, sometimes, you take things too literally, too rigdly, when in truth, I think people talk in looser terms. For example, when John Deacon says, "WE sang backing vocals", I do not see that as a literal truth to support the fact that John sings on that track, rather, I feel that it is meant to be taken more loosely, (ie: WE - QUEEN THE BAND - sang backing vocals, and therefore Deacon does NOT sing on the track). It's like Wayne Rooney saying "We scored four goals", when, in effect, Mr Rooney scored none - but that does not make him a liar, or his statement misleading. Therefore,what seems like a contradiction in terms, is NOT in itself a contradiction. But I ramble. I do not mean to pull you up on single words, or misinterpretations, but I do think you miss the bigger picture, (the spirit if you like), because you get hung-up on minute details which really do not demonstrate evidence - one way or another. This is not a negative mail. This is not a complaint. Just a request to sit back, and relax a bit, and to try and see things from a number of different viewpoints, (then make a decission)other than the solitary (sometimes shakey) fixed positions you seem to frequently enjoy. |
| Sebastian 17.11.2005 07:55 |
> All I wanted to say was that I think, sometimes, you take things too literally True, but it doesn't concern the understanding (or not) of a language. It's a simple matter of interpretation. > you get hung-up on minute details which really do not demonstrate evidence - one way or another. I agree with that part; even if I've never intended to claim I "own" the truth whatsoever, I just feel quite lazy to write "in my opinion" at the beginning of every line :). All in all, I'm aware my messages usually can come across very strongly and mordacious (and just for the record it doesn't mean I can't speak the language, it's more related to individual personality) and I'm trying to correct that as much as I can. > This is not a negative mail. Not taken as such, don't worry. > This is not a complaint. Ditto. > Just a request to sit back, and relax a bit, and to try and see things from a number of different viewpoints Again, and harking back to the old times, something we'd both agreed on then was that you can't sense the tone by reading an internet forum. Your line makes me realise that perhaps you (and/or many other people) may interpret what I write as a "superiority" claim when, obviously, it's not my intention. > (then make a decission)other than the solitary (sometimes shakey) fixed positions you seem to frequently enjoy Once again, you're taking this the wrong way, but it's much more my fault than yours. But no, I'm not that stubborn (especially nowadays). All I say is: nothing is excluded. |
| john bodega 17.11.2005 11:55 |
Hooah. Someone (Brian or Roger... don't remember) said he heard John sing Another One Bites the Dust to Freddie when he was first selling them on the idea. And that it was pretty awful. |
| Fairy 17.11.2005 15:07 |
Guys I love this topic! I'm not a musician and can't understand everything that's being discussed but I think the choir parts are one of the best features of Queen. Thanks to Sebastian and everyone else for your comments. I think one of the absolute best Freddie choir performances is The Prophet's Song. Can anyone tell me something about it, like, is it just Freddie who sings it? Thank you Fairy |
| Sebastian 17.11.2005 15:35 |
The first half of Prophet's Song canon is just Freddie, then Roger and Brian join. |
| Fairy 18.11.2005 03:29 |
Thanks Sebastian! I'll listen closely and try to spot them. |
| Teo_torriate04 21.11.2005 03:17 |
On the recent Bo Rhap dissertation for BBC Radio 4. one of the contributors states that Roger could sing over an octave higher than Pavarotti could. He also stated that to do so is probably illegal ! |