| Sebastian 08.07.2004 13:57 |
link You're all invited. Any suggestion or ideas about the design is welcome, since I want to make sure how I'm going to do it before I continue with more articles. so far the design looks a bit weird since the other analyses haven't been made yet. This is the foundation of a "coming late" new version of my website, with full analyses of the songs and instruments. Enjoy it. |
| Somebody to loveeeee 08.07.2004 14:28 |
I find it amazing to read, although I don't really understand it very well. My knowledge of making music kinda stopped at the triangle. Still fascinating though. I wonder if Queen talked as "scientific" about what they wanted in their songs as you do now. I think they didn't, but just "fooled around" a bit in the studio. Awaiting more songs. By the way, you've made some spellingerrors... |
| Pim Derks 08.07.2004 14:43 |
Content-wise: excellent. Designwise it's very poor... Comic Sans in the menu is not done and the Photoshop filter you used on the picture at the bottom is not done either.... The font you used at the top looks strange too, like you originally had it at 10px high and then re-scaled it to the size it is now.... It's not really a design, just some frames with text. Of course the main focus is the content, but it looks like a site from 1995. |
| Saint Jiub 08.07.2004 17:18 |
A site with crap content and perfect fonts would be sooo much better ... |
| Josuè 08.07.2004 17:57 |
The content is perfect, you are the master Sebastian. First of all, if you want a black backfround, you'll have to play with more colors than the white. And to enlarge the lyrics, I hardly can read them! Anyway, I adore you! |
| Sebastian 08.07.2004 19:32 |
Thanks for the comments About spelling - thanks, I'll double check this afternoon Design - this is of course a prototype (or a "naked" version), I want to polish it until I get the right one, and then I'll start with the next analysis - Save Me - so I can apply the same design to everything.I want to have a precise dynamic design not complex at all. Frames worked well for what I wanted, although in this song it can't be noted so much. I originally wanted the right frame for little "bonus" sections, like quotes collections or perhaps a list of chart positions in the case of the singles. Any way, any ideas you guys can give me about the organisation of the analyses is welcome. Maybe I can use the right frame for "technical" explanations, so the main text wouldn't be so dense |
| FriedChicken 08.07.2004 23:52 |
Make the site a bit more 'eye friendly' and a bit easier to navigate. Drop the frame on the right. and make the top of the page (the title) a bit smaller. So the box where the words are gets bigger > easier to read |
| GonnaUseMyPrisoners 09.07.2004 00:59 |
Very ambitious, indeed, and interesting, for sure. Can the musical notation be 30-50% larger, perhaps? I find the accidentals (sharps/flats/naturals) quite difficult to read, particularly in the first chord in the middle staff. Keep in mind, anyone may put whatever they like on their site - don't take any of my comments as demands or anything... do what you like! But since you asked... in the interests of perfecting an already excellent site: I'd love to analyze the notes along with you, myself, but my keyboard's still packed away since my big move this spring. I do think, however, that there may be some inaccuracies among your musical notation (although you get an A for effort on this difficult intro passage). I'm nearly certain that the voice that comes in in the 3rd measure is singing a melodic Augmented 2nd (e.g. C# to Bb - spelled as a second, but comprising 3 half-tones like a minor 3rd), not a Major 3rd from D to Bb. That gives it the eerie quality (or Middle-Eastern in some contexts). Anyone with a keyboard or guitar not packed away that can verify? The only other thing, though... I do think you could soften your point about how under-appreciated this song is... I get the feeling you take it's relative unpopularity quite personally... and I actually get uncomfortable as I'm reading that! :-( Anyway, I don't think that point needs to be "proven", really - I'd think a mere single mention would help your prose flow a bit better. And your comparison to the very obscure "The Kiss" is extremely distracting (can't really puzzle that one out). It's only my opinion, but being on Sheer Heart Attack (one of the top Queen LP successes & best sellers), can it really be "relatively unknown" (like The Kiss from the dismal seller, Flash Gordon)? If it makes you feel any better, I'll let you know it's always been one of my faves, however strangely delivered the vocal was! Maybe a comment on how many (or how few) times the song was performed live would neatly make your point? OH, sorry, I found one more PICKY, PICKY thing: you might re-word the part saying "Very technically skilled piano fast arpeggios were played by Mercury in the intro". Because it's Mercury who is skilled, and not the arpeggios, I'd suggest "Very technically demanding, fast piano arpeggios in the intro were skillfully played by Mercury", or something similar. Keep up the wonderful work - love to see the ambition - your hard work is really paying off! |
| Mr. Scully 09.07.2004 02:55 |
Sebastian, are you sure you still don't want to use PHP? Even a couple of simple 'includes' could save you a lot of code. I don't like the different fonts. In fact I'm quite happy with your current design, I don't think this is a major improvement. But I agree that in your case frames are probably the best solution. |
| YourValentine 09.07.2004 03:32 |
Great work, Sebastian, very well researched and very well written. I cannot imagine how much time you must have spent getting all these facts together. I like the "sub articles" which makes it easy to find specific information. Your website is sure one of the best on the net. |
| kweenqueen 09.07.2004 03:53 |
Sebastian you are the man! I really love reading this kind of things. I'm very interested in harmonies and do a lot of analyzing/singing myself. When I create own songs I always have the harmonies in focus. Especially the vocals (but also guitar). So theories around these subjects are super interesting for musical nerds like myself. Keep up the good work! /Adam Steen |
| Gunpowder Gelatine 09.07.2004 04:09 |
Great site, I love the quotes from the band and producers. |
| Babel_esp 09.07.2004 04:58 |
Definately one of the top sites related to Queen! The content is unique - I don't really matter the design since it is very simple it is easy to find what you are looking for quickly. Congratulations :) |
| Bohardy 09.07.2004 09:14 |
Very good and ambitious, all in all. It's good that this kind of exhaustive analysis of all Queen's songs is finally getting somewhere. This should end up being the ultimate reference for Queen 'songs', but it's gonna need a lot of collaboration and improvement before it fulfills its potential. There are lots of areas that I feel could be improved, one of the main ones being the 'tone' that the articles are written in. Some of it just doesn't sound professional or academic enough for the subject matter at hand. But I can't really be bothered to list all the thoughts I had when reading the analysis. But I do have to say, as GUMP touched on, that I'm sure some of the harmony you have is fairly off. Certainly in the very opening section, the chords are not all minor; I'm sure there's a dim7, and a half-dim, and possibly even a major chord in there somewhere. I'm not at home now, so can't check, but off the top of my head I'm sure that opening progression is more like: F#m7b5 - G - Gdim7 (or maybe Gm7b5) - Am - Dm. You have that Dm as a Dm6, which it most definitely isn't (at least in the piano part) as Fred doesn't play a B-natural at all in that passage. Phrase C starts with a Cmajor chord, before going to, and fluctuating around, some kind of Cdim/Ebdim chord if I remember rightly. I get a bit confused about what you're doing in Phrase D. As far as I'm concerned, the sequence Ebdim/B - Ebdim/A - Ebdim/B - Ebdim/A doesn't occur anywhere in the whole song. The Ebdim part is about right, but I don't know where you got the bass-notes from. The Bbm chord in that section is not entirely correct, as the chords again fluctuate around some form of Bbdim, rather than staying on a simple Bbm. Phrase E is surely wrong too. I'm sure the harmony progresses up a Dim7 chord in Dim7s, ie it goes: Bbdim7 - Dbdim7 - Edim7 - Gdim7. Phrase F again is wrong, as the piano chords alternate between G and (I'm pretty sure) Gm7b5, rather than the simple Gm you have. Would it not be simpler to label the chord at the start of section J as F#dim7? And I may be wrong, but isn't there another repeat of the Gm7 - C in that section, or at least just the Gm, that you seem to have missed? I'll try and have a better look at this when I'm at home with my piano and the CD, but although this is all from my head right now, I'm pretty confident in all I've said. Anyway, hope this helps and keep up the good work on your excellent site. |
| FriedChicken 09.07.2004 09:36 |
I really doubt if he'll change it to be honest, Bohardy |
| deleted user 09.07.2004 09:57 |
|
| deleted user 09.07.2004 09:58 |
GonnaUseMyPrisoners wrote: And your comparison to the very obscure "The Kiss" is extremely distracting (can't really puzzle that one out). It's only my opinion, but being on Sheer Heart Attack (one of the top Queen LP successes & best sellers), can it really be "relatively unknown" (like The Kiss from the dismal seller, Flash Gordon)?They're both extravagant and often overlooked songs, so the comparison works, IMHO. Apart from that, Flash Gordon is far from being a dismal seller. It reached no.2 in the world's third largest record market, where it was their most successful album to date. |
| Sebastian 09.07.2004 11:24 |
Lots of comments, which is very useful indeed: > Drop the frame on the right More than that I want to make the right frame more useful. Right now it's completely pointless > and make the top of the page (the title) a bit smaller. You're right > I do think, however, that there may be some inaccuracies among your musical notation This is possible indeed since it's hard to transcribe chords for the intro. So any help is well received. Two/three/ten... heads think/listen better than one > I get the feeling you take it's relative unpopularity quite personally... and I actually get uncomfortable as I'm reading that! :-( Thanks for pointing that out. While the under-rating of this track is something I definitely want to discuss, I don't want by any means to imply that I'm offended or bothered by that. That's adisadvantage of written language, you can't sense the tone, although I should find better synonims or something to make it less "strong". Thanks > you might re-word the part saying "Very technically skilled piano fast arpeggios were played by Mercury in the intro". Because it's Mercury who is skilled, and not the arpeggios, I'd suggest "Very technically demanding, fast piano arpeggios in the intro were skillfully played by Mercury", or something similar. Yes, you're right about that. Hadn't thought about it though. "Small" details like that one make the difference between a poor and a great research. > Sebastian, are you sure you still don't want to use PHP? Even a couple of simple 'includes' could save you a lot of code. Nothing is excluded. That's why I'm holding before I make the 'Save Me' analysis, I want to polish the 'Lap' one until I can find the one, and then I'll just apply that standard to the rest > I don't like the different fonts. In fact I'm quite happy with your current design, No wonder why I gave it to this thread. I am interested in any ideas you or anyone else can give me about it > I don't think this is a major improvement. I did like the "unpredictable" background (Brian playing synth, Fred playing guitar, John playing drums, Rog playing bass) but I finally gave up to the black one for design reasons: the sheets look transparent and mixed in the site when they share the bg color. Moreover the image effect is nice. > The content is unique - I don't really matter the design since it is very simple it is easy to find what you are looking for quickly. That's my idea, only that I want to do it better :) > This should end up being the ultimate reference for Queen 'songs', but it's gonna need a lot of collaboration and improvement before it fulfills its potential. I coulnd't agree more > There are lots of areas that I feel could be improved, one of the main ones being the 'tone' that the articles are written in Again, I agree. I haven't found the formula for a good precise short clear but deep essay yet. > I'm sure some of the harmony you have is fairly off. Another reason why I bring it to the forum >F#m7b5 - G - Gdim7 (or maybe Gm7b5) - Am - Dm. That's very interesting, and changes seeral details of the article. Please drop me a line if you confirm the correct transcription > The Ebdim part is about right, but I don't know where you got the bass-notes from. Piano changes the bottom note in that phrase. It's not so much a bass note but it's the lowest one. First B then A. But as I'm not a "consumated" transcriber, I can't make a sure conclusion. That's again why I brought it here > The Bbm chord in that section is not entirely correct, as the chords again fluctuate around some form of Bbdim, rather than staying on a simple Bbm. Very useful facts, thanks again > Phrase F again is wrong, as the piano chords alternate between G and (I'm pretty sure) Gm7b5, rather than the simple Gm you have. No wonder why I coudln't |
| the oppositionist 09.07.2004 19:49 |
analysis is a dangerous word to use on here... big congrats on the site! |
| Sebastian 10.07.2004 22:05 |
About the Dm6, I wrote it because Roger sings a Bb, but Dm6 would be with B-natural now I think of it. So, Dm with Bb would be like Dmaug5? |
| GonnaUseMyPrisoners 11.07.2004 12:41 |
Maybe I can help a bit here. The answer depends on whether you're using Classical or Jazz/Pop chord analysis. I studied Classical music in college, so that's the way my brain (and ear) is programmed. Hopefully, someone else will respond who has mastered chord naming from the Jazz/Pop realm. I'm also "giving you" the fact that "Roger sings a Bb", which I can't verify with an instrument right now (soon, though), so I'm only analyzing what I'm reading here, not necessarily what I'm hearing... i.e. disclaimer. (If the rest of your analysis is correct, I consider it quite unlikely that Freddie & Roger are holding notes 1/2 step away from each other - that's a very difficult dissonance to pull off... not saying it's not possible for them, nor that it's not true in this case, just unlikely, I guess, until I can verify. I swear I'll take a stand on this as soon as I unpack the keyboard.) For now I'll just use your info. In the Classical world of musical analysis, the 6th chord doesn't exist. If a Bb note is introduced as an addition to a dm chord triad (Bb-D-F-A), it is then called a BbMaj7 or BbM7, since a Bb is spelled a third below the D (B-C-D = a third). It doesn't matter if the Bb is the bass note or not - the D and F reinforce the overtones of the Bb Major triad and we hear it "take over" as the chord's root. The "A" is then considered the dissonance, the "major 7th" interval from the Bb, which would need resolution by melodic movement. In the Jazz/Pop realm, I think, it might matter if the note is in the bass. I'm not qualified to say, so... Help! |
| Brian_Mays_Wig 11.07.2004 15:39 |
An analysis eh...... Hmmmm, Its SO easy, But I cant do it. |
| Bohardy 12.07.2004 04:17 |
Really the Dm/Bb issue here is a moot point, because listening to the track again, at no point does Rog sing a Bb in the passage in question, as GUMP suspected. Fred sings a Bb briefly in passing, as he does a C#, so if you were to label the Dm chord with that Bb in mind, you should also bear the C# in mind. In transcribing/scoring this intro, I would always label a simple 'Dm' for that particular section. But the issue of whether you can have a minor chord with an added minor-6th is a tricky one. For the most part I would agree with GUMP, in that the minor-6th note is really the only note you can't add as an extension to a minor chord (or perhaps the major 3rd...), for all the reasons that GUMP explained. But there are no absolute hard and fast rules in harmonic analysis/chord-naming, and a lot of the choices made when naming a particular chord are based on the chord's context, or even voicing. For example, the notes in C6 and Am7 are exactly the same, so how you choose to name the chord can be seen to be a personal choice, based on the surrounding chords and voicing of the chord at hand. Although I used to believe you could NEVER add a minor-6th to a minor chord (I remember once having an 'argument' with a band-mate to that effect, where he held the contrary position)I now think that in certain cases, it is possible to add a minor-6th note to a minor chord and still describe the chord as being a variant of the original minor chord. I personally would name that chord as a 'mb6' (minor flat-6). In minor harmony, the note/interval in question would never be described in terms of the 5th (aug5 or #5), but in terms of the 6th. I call this chord the Radiohead chord, as they like to use it a lot. In the cases where they use this chord, when that minor 6th is added to a minor chord it always sound like an extension to that minor-chord, rather than a new chord. If you have a Dm chord, and it is reinforced by means of a low power-chord of D-A on whatever instruments, sometimes the adding of a Bb into this chord higher up the register just cannot overpower the underlying Dm feel, and you feel compelled to describe the chord as Dmb6. On the guitar, this chord... 0 1 0 2 2 0 ...technically just contains the notes of a Cmaj7 chord, but something about the voicing (you have the E power-chord reinforcing the E-flavour) lets you still recognise the chord as sounding like a type of E-minor chord. I reckon, anyway. |
| Bohardy 12.07.2004 04:33 |
...and now back to the main issue. I did go back and check the chords for the intro, and basically all I said is correct. I will post a complete chord-chart for the section soon, but once again I'm at work and even though I now am surer about those chords than when I first posted, it's pointless my making a post which will only be superceded later by a definitive one. I'll try and get that done tonight. There's a point I meant to make in my first post about your article Seb, which is that there's no way Fred is playing arpeggios at the rate of 18 notes per second, as you claim, anywhere in that intro. The 9 notes per second sounds about right for all the arpeggios he plays (basically absolutely everything in the right-hand during the intro), but I just can't see how you think he doubles that speed at any point. I guess you must be referring to the Dm bit (as in the section we're talking about above), but all that happens there is that the piano is doubled an octave higher, and a melody is added in the left hand rather than it being merely just a held root-note as it previously had been. The speed of Fred's right-hand and the amount of notes stays constant throughout, save for the slight ritardandos. |
| Sebastian 12.07.2004 06:02 |
> the fact that "Roger sings a Bb", which I can't verify with an instrument right now I'll re-check it asap. If he didn't, then the score I wrote it wrong too:( > I did go back and check the chords for the intro, and basically all I said is correct. I already added your corrections (haven't uploaded them yet though), with what I could understand: I'm still not sure when does the chord change from C major to C minor in the C phrase. Any help would be greatly appreciated > I'll try and get that done tonight. Thanks a lot, that way I can complete the correction of that part > but I just can't see how you think he doubles that speed at any point. In that case perhaps in the first two bars he's playing slower, 5 or 6 notes p/s > a melody is added in the left hand rather than it being merely just a held root-note as it previously had been. I don't have it right here either, but I think there is an accelerando in that part. Not so much as double tempo as I described it, I agree. But he did "get emotive" and played faster than before; in fact I think there are a couple of glitches there too > The speed of Fred's right-hand and the amount of notes stays constant throughout, save for the slight ritardandos. I should slow it down and count it. That'd be a good idea. Asap I'll do it too. That part is a good example of Fred's "clockwise" rhythm and feel. Although he didn't do it 100% exact, he did maintain a remarkably good inner metronome. Not so much in the first verse though |
| Sebastian 13.07.2004 04:08 |
My other big doubt is about the keys. Anybody can give me a hand with that please? I think it starts in Dm then there's a modulation to... C maybe? |
| Sebastian 16.07.2004 02:02 |
Just to comment the progress this week: Note rate: I finally got the way to put the file and mix it, cutting out the vocals, and definitely he did double the speed in the Dm bit. First and third measures he plays 6 notes per bar (don't know the technical name, I know it has something to do with triplets), then in second and fourth he plays three notes per beat (i.e. 12 notes in the bar). However, I slowed it down to half tempo and left only the fastest part so I could check the speed, and it's much less than I had calculated. Scientificaly measured, the 12 per measure note part lasted 2 secs (a little little little less actually, but it'd be like 1.998 or something...), which in the actual tempo it was recorded, would be 12 notes per second. So in the first and third measures he was playing six, not nine. Also I detected a little ritardando in that fast arpeggio bit, but it can also be considered a syncopa. I'd love to know if any of you know of a free server where I can upload small mp3 files. That way I could put the piano arpeggios there and link, so it'd be more accurate. In any case, a sound file worths more than a thousand words. As for the chords, I wonder if any of you know about the classical influence of those progressions and the use of F#m7b5 and such things. Which composer/period could be the most influential for that? and the arpeggio kind of playing? Intro: The last scream of Rog is a Bb, or perhaps an A#. I mean, he starts off in D, then does a glissando down, and then up a little. During the Am chord he was singing A, then in Dm he passes to a higher note, which sounds more A# than Bb now that I hear it again. The difference is just a comma. So, perhaps the chord is Bbmaj7/D? Thanks to everyone |
| Bohardy 16.07.2004 03:48 |
I'll post my definitive analysis of the chords for the intro either later today or tomorrow Seb. I meant to do it last night, and have got the actual post saved on my PC at home. I've also spent a few hours the last couple of nights in actually writing out Freddie's part, but at the moment I'm just having a bit of trouble in finding the best way of getting my score from my PC to somewhere you can all see it. I did the same as you and listened using the karaoke-trick. I'd confidently say my piano part is at least 95% accurate, and that the only mistakes may be in the 1 or 2 places where you simply can't hear exactly what Fred plays, mainly in the Cm section. But I have to say that at no point does Fred speed-up the rate of notes he's playing in the intro. For the ENTIRE intro (apart from 2 quaver's worth of time), Fred is playing (if you have the piece in a fairly slow 4/4) semi-quaver triplets in his right hand (which are essntially sextuplets - 6 notes per beat/crotchet). When he gets to the Dm chord, the pattern in which he plays these sextuplets changes, another piano enters which doubles piano 1 an octave higher, and the left-hand now plays some of the notes in the sextuplet pattern. I think all of that creates the impression that Fred is playing more notes in this section than he previously was. That isn't the case. Having said that, on the first beat in two occurences of the Dm section Fred adds an extra note into the sextuplet, which means that whereas every other bar in the whole intro (apart from the obvious rit in the last bar) has 24 notes in the (mainly) right-hand, there are 2 bars with 25 notes in them. This isn't what you were talking about though. Hopefully I'll be able to post my score somewhere soon, and you'll be able to see exactly what I mean. If you like Seb, I could send you the MIDI file of it. |
| Bohardy 16.07.2004 03:51 |
Oh yeah, and I still absolutely dispute that Rog sings a Bb over that Dm chord. |
| Farlander 16.07.2004 06:57 |
Frankly, I think you overestimate the difficulty of the arpeggios, such as in this bit: "The intro features a show-off of Freddie's enviable piano ability by playing very fast arpeggios. Average rock players are miles away for doing something like that. Mercury's advanced technique is also demonstrated in Death On Two Legs, My Fairy King and some improvisations live (for example the one he played before Somebody To Love at Milton Keynes Bowl in 1982). The speed of his right hand is, during the first two measures, averagely 9 notes per second (considering that he played six notes per beat in an approximate tempo of 90 beats per minute). The fastest arpeggios (during the "oh oh oh oh oh") are the double, so there we have about 18 notes per second, which is awesome." In reality, those parts are not particularly demanding, nor is any of the piano music Freddie ever recorded. His piano technique is certainly worthy of praise, but not because of any particularly amazing technical ability. If "average rock players are miles away for doing something like that" as you say, then they are pathetically unskilled in their craft. |
| Sebastian 16.07.2004 07:08 |
The note indeed has to be changed, and will be soon. Anyway, I think average rock keyboard players are very basic. Specially considering that in many bands the keyboardist is just the guitarist extending his functions (e.g. U2). Of course not Keith Emerson or Rick Wakeman, but they're way way way more than "average". |
| Farlander 16.07.2004 09:39 |
Freddie definately knew what he was doing at the piano, to be sure. I find it dissapointing that he didn't play too much piano live and played less and less even in the studio as time went on. |
| Sebastian 16.07.2004 10:49 |
Yes, I loved it too when he played on stage, he did some nice stuff, like the solo in 'White Queen'. An unplugged concert would have been a nice option in middle eighties, including a come-back of that number |
| Farlander 16.07.2004 14:01 |
On a related note, did you find the placement of the piano during concerts rather odd? Why would you put the piano on the left side of the stage and orient it so that you face left while sitting at it? If you turned it around, you could see the band. As it was, you could see nothing helpful. |
| Sebastian 17.07.2004 01:01 |
Yes but by one side it was a neccesary position imo, since in many songs (Somebody, Bo Rhap, Bicycle, Don't Stop Me, Save Me, Need Your Loving, White Queen, Black Queen, Millionaire Waltz, Lap Revisited, Doin' All Right, Death On Two Legs, Seven Seas, It's A Hard Life, perhaps Mustapha) Fred changed from frontman to piano player during the song, so the way it was located allowed him a more comfortable and quick "exit" from or to the center of the stage. I like the way they connected without having to look to each other, they had other way to communicate. For example Fred marked the end of Crazy Little Thing by saying "alright", then they all got ready for finishing it, so it wasn't neccesary to direct or make a sign. Same in 'Lap Of the Gods', they just improvised over the K phrase over and over, until Fred sang "lap of the gods" one more time and that was when they moved on to the next section. That's a good plus for that band on stage |