| PabloArg 23.07.2004 15:57 |
Hi! I was just wondering if any of you knew the origin of this MIH song. I think I've heard some time ago that it was originally recorded during the hot space sessions; but I don't believe it's truth, It doesn't share exactly the same style of body language, staying power, dancer, and so. Of course, it could have been much like them before re working on it, but I doubt.... That's all, thanks. |
| Gunpowder Gelatine 23.07.2004 16:01 |
**Wed 21 Jul 04** YOU DON'T FOOL ME [Ed: In response to 'Was You Don't Foool Me' written in the late 80's or during the Hot Space sessions...] As I remember, the bare bones of this song [You Don't Fool Me] (and they were VERY bare!) were put down in the last sessions we did with Freddie in Montreux. When it came to piecing together "Made in Heaven", the album, David Richards was keen to make the fragments into a finished song. I wasn't sure there was enough to work on! He got a long way with weaving textures around the vocal sections we had, stretching things out a little. I think both Roger, and John who had had a lot to do with those original fragments in the beginning, went in and added some ideas. There came a point where finally I got enthusistic, and I spent a day or so, with Dave, putting down a lot of different riffy ideas that came to me while listening to the rough so far. Dave then moved a lot of things around, and worked his magic (mixing is his speciality - he 'rescued' a lot of stuff in the past, including Duran Duran tracks, for instance) - and then we all sat around and said, "Didn't we just play that perfectly!" ha ha! Well, that's probably an over-simplification.... but ... there you have it! I really like the track now - but not as much as I LOVE the title track, MADE IN HEAVEN, which I think is possibly the best sounding Queen track ever, and MOTHER LOVE, which is to me the most significant collaboration I ever had with Freddie ..... alongside the one afternon I spent with him on an embryonic verse of "The Show Must Go On". I think I wrote about these things earlier .... But I digress... right ? ! Cheers Bri (From Brian's soapbox) |
| Sebastian 24.07.2004 07:44 |
So, to sum up, Fred's piano and vocal parts were recorded in this order: --- March 1980 at Munich: It's A Beautiful Day --- August (more or less) 1983 at LA Let Me Live --- May 25th 1984 at Munich I Was Born To Love You --- May 31st 1984 at Munich Made In Heaven --- 1986/1987 at Montreux Heaven For Everyone --- 1987/1988 at Montreux and/or London My Life Has Been Saved --- 1991 at Montreux You Don't Fool Me A Winter's Tale Mother Love --- My big doubt is Too Much Love. I haven't seen any confirmation that it was for The Miracle album. It could easily before (Magic or even Works) or some months later - Innuendo -... don't think Hot Space. Anyway, all we know is that Dave said it was recorded before Digital recording machines were around. So it's possibly an early recording (84/85). Moreover, Brian said he first sketched the song in LA, which would relate to Works/Starfleet sessions in 1983, but I guess he could travel later, so it's not so definitive. |
| deleted user 24.07.2004 10:42 |
The TMLWKY-demo apparently comes from the some batch of demos that surfaced from the Miracle Sessions. And it makes sense: Freddie's voice on this track sounds very much like 1987-1991. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the May/Musker/Lamers-sessions took place in 1988 or maybe 1987. It also can't have been written much earlier, because TMLWKY mirrors Brian's personal situation of those days (Anita Dobson and his faltering marriage). Brian spent a lot of time in L.A., especially in the late 80s (he had a dwelling there, I think). It's not restricted to 1983. By the way, I wonder why you state on your website that the piano on this song was programmed rather than played. How come ? I'm pretty sure it was played. |
| Sebastian 24.07.2004 11:36 |
It was actually 50-50. I mean, he corrected mistakes in the midi, which originally came from a live performance. That doesn't go for the BTTL version, in which he did play the whole thing live |
| deleted user 24.07.2004 11:44 |
Well that's more like 90-10, isn't it ? Seriously, thanks for sharing this fact. Where do you know that from ? |
| John S Stuart 24.07.2004 15:09 |
"Too Much Love" was created between 1986 - 1989 between the "A Kind Of Magic" and "The Miracle" LP's. I know this because... It was written "Post-Magic" sessions. The magic sessions were pretty much complete, and "Too Much Love" was not a Queen track, but a May/Musker/Lamers collaboration. Many of us own the Promo "Miracle" teaser tape; Miracle (Different Lyrics/Instruments), Invisible Man (Different Lyrics/Instruments), I Want It All (Incomplete Lyrics), Scandal, Too Much Love Will Kill You (Freddie vocal) - all edited Versions Taken From The Forthcoming Miracle Album. This certainly shows that "Too Much Love" WAS completed with a Freddie vocal "PRE-Miracle" release. The original "Too Much Love" Demo was cut in New York - c1987 and consists of the following tracks; Intro Demo 3:08 First Piano Demo 2:55 Every Time Demo 1:38 Ending Demo “21 Second Verse Demo 1:04 “Shit!” Demo 3:11 Acoustic Guitar Demo 2:35 Home Keyboard Instrumental 4:32 First Vocal Demo 4:48 Home Duet Demo 4:47 Now, I am too lazy at present, but if anyone is willing to do a little research, "Too Much Love" was originally written c1987, in New York City, between 1986 - 1989 (I would guess post Barcelona) - so when was Brian in the states during this period? |
| Lester Burnham 24.07.2004 15:49 |
John, I sent you an email a few months ago, but you never responded. I find this information of yours absolutely fascinating; is there anything else you could tell us, maybe about The Game / Hot Space sessions? |
| deleted user 24.07.2004 15:52 |
Thank you very much for clearing this up, John. I'm still a bit confused though. Is this NYC demo-tape from 1987 a demo that Brian did with Musker and Lamers whilst writing the song or is this a demo recorded with Queen/Freddie later on ? And what about the Bell Boy-tape ? Is this something different again or does it contain material from the NYC-sessions ? |
| John S Stuart 24.07.2004 16:15 |
Philipp Nothaft wrote: Is this NYC demo-tape from 1987 a demo that Brian did with Musker and Lamers whilst writing the song or is this a demo recorded with Queen/Freddie later on ? And what about the Bell Boy-tape ? Is this something different again or does it contain material from the NYC-sessions ?First: The NYC demo and the Bell Boy tape are the same thing. Part of this "Bell boy tape" was "stolen" (ie recorded) between the time I bought it, and received it - and has been circulated ever since. The other bits I'm afraid - remain unreleased. Second: it is not a real demo tape as such, but a home recording session recorded on a standard cassette tape featuring Brian with Musker and Lamers whilst writing the song. Therefore, I can deduce that both the "proper" studio and Freddie sessions came later. Considering Freddie's workload at this time ("Mr Bad Guy", "Time" and "Barcelona"), I would have to strongly suggest that the Freddie version at least, would be post Barcelona. Again, looking at when Freddie and Brian were able to work together - I think this too suggests late '87 - early '88. |
| Daburcor? 24.07.2004 17:07 |
Sebastian wrote: August (more or less) 1983 at LA Let Me LiveAre you speaking of the original demo or what came to be on "Made In Heaven"? Because, To me, Freddie sounds different on that than he did in the 80's. Sebastian wrote: May 25th 1984 at Munich I Was Born To Love YouWow! My first birthday! What a great present! ;) |
| Sebastian 24.07.2004 23:34 |
According to what Brian said, the first sketches of Too Much Love were done in LA, not New York. |
| John S Stuart 25.07.2004 10:23 |
Tell me Seb: What exactly is a "sketch"? Also: If Brian was on a US tour at the time, is it not possible that "Too Much Love" was "created" between NY and LA - and even both? For example: I know that Jimmy Page claimed to write whilst on tour, and that Noddy Holder wrote on airplanes - so pinning a "magical" moment to "Over the Windy City" may both be correct on one hand - and incorrect on the other. From my understanding, "The Bell Boy tape" came from NY - but technically you could be correct, it may have began life (or was even recorded) in LA, but this is conjecture. But what I do know with certainty is: if the tape itself was completed by the time Brian was in NY, then logically, I can place the studio (and Freddie session) with some degree of accuracy BETWEEN the NY tape and "The Miracle" LP, which after all was the main point of the discussion. |
| Sebastian 25.07.2004 10:32 |
In the case he did some recording in NY later, those would be the second sketches, not the first anyway:) |
| John S Stuart 25.07.2004 10:51 |
Lester Burnham wrote: I find this information of yours absolutely fascinating; is there anything else you could tell us, maybe about The Game / Hot Space sessions?Thanks Lester, but the problem is my life is too short to become involved in point-scoring, and wall-pissing competitions, and the sad fact is that I can never win. For example, I have already in previous threads written a little about "The Game", "The Works", "A Kind Of Magic" and "You Don't Fool Me", and in each occassion I have had to "fight" to demonstrate the things I said were "broadly" correct. (See above example). In some cases this has been my own fault. As an academic, I am sure you understand that rather than bore with detailed minutia, to simplify things I have glossed over some details and talked in "broad-brush strokes" about others - but this brings howls of "wrong/inacurate and you are a fraud/cheat/blaggard" or whatever. Then, if I say, I know about this because "I have the acetate" - I am accused of both upsetting the board by showing off - and in turn become a braggard. Finally; much of what I write in Queenzone is stolen and appears on other web pages without as much as a "thank-you", then, when I point out a minor correction - the substitute site - is held up as the authority. (The Bell Boy tape is a good example - as I think someone once wrote to tell me that my track listing was inaccurate!). So there you have it, in sum: I am "damned if I do, and damned if I don't". I am not a gun-slinger, and I do not enjoy "personal pops" - as they do "get" to me. It is a shame - but that's life I suppose! |
| John S Stuart 25.07.2004 11:10 |
Sebastian wrote: In the case he did some recording in NY later, those would be the second sketches, not the first anyway:)But that is my point Seb - "what is a sketch" - as you conveniently forget to answer the question. Is a sketch an "original idea", a "theory", a "few words" a "verse" a "chorus" - or is it few "written notes", or is it a demo "recording" of some sort? The FIRST recordings of "Too Much Love" are on the "Bellboy tape" which itself comes from NY. (It COULD come from LA - but I have no evidence to support this - but that does NOT mean that the LA theory is incorrect). The complete tape demonstrates without doubt, the track grew as a "work in progress", and that each additional "track" was littered with fragments that did not make the final cut. So it is certain that Brian did not have the full song (or anything like it) in mind before the tape was recorded. That does NOT contradict Brian's LA "sketches" claim. However, the "Bellboy tape" DOES prove that this was democratically recorded over a few hours - and I can guarantee that this tracks the song from the very first note/idea to the first full-blown demos, and that no earlier versions exist. In otherwords; NO WAY does this tape reflect "...second sketches...". Finally, to repeat myself: Therefore, I can deduce that both the "proper" studio and Freddie sessions came later (Regardless whether it was a NY or LA birth). |
| Sebastian 25.07.2004 11:37 |
I agree that Fred's sessions should be later. But, to clear something, I didn't say I think or believe or am sure that the song started in LA, Brian could have simply misremembered after all those years. Maybe it was NY and he said LA, who knows. Same case as Masterstroke studio, or the brand of the tour piano, etc. In fact Brian's memory seems to be a little off last years imo |
| John S Stuart 25.07.2004 11:41 |
Seb: I agree with you that LA is the most LIKELY place for a recording because as pointed out earlier - Brian did live there at one time. But, as an example: in answer to the question "When did Freddie record "Mr Bad Guy"? to say between "The Works" and "Barcelona" is MORE accurate than saying "A Night At The Opera" and "Barcelona" - both are correct, but one is MORE precise than the other. I conceed you may well be correct about the LA thing, (and as suggested above it does make more sense), but like the above example, to say Freddie recorded the track between NY - and "The Miracle" is MORE accurate than "LA and the Miracle" because the former is a more precise time scale. Philip you asked: "I wonder why you state on your website that the piano on this song was programmed rather than played". Seb answered: "It was actually 50-50. I mean, he corrected mistakes in the midi, which originally came from a live performance. That doesn't go for the BTTL version, in which he did play the whole thing live..." If we are still talking about "Too Much Love Will Kill You", this is not the case. A Hollywood records "Karaoke" version was miss-pressed and is affectionately known as the "piano/demo version. (I know I am not the only Zoner to have this disc!) Between the Bellboy tape, and the Hollywood miss-press, we know that the piano WAS played (not programmed) for the studio release, and that the "Back To The Light" version was not live but a complete studio performance. |
| Sebastian 25.07.2004 13:22 |
When I said 'BTTL was live' (or something to that effect) I meant that the piano was played live (I mean, from the beginning to the end of the song, same take), instead of "first verse, cut, now, roll the tape, second verse, cut... now put the takes together". I didn't mean he played it in a concert Bo Rhap is also a live backing track (I mean, Roger, John and Fred played their parts at the same time and left the take), while the lead vocal is compiled from different tracks and edited. |
| John S Stuart 25.07.2004 13:36 |
OK Seb: but that's not "really" live is it - that's more in "One-take" is it not? Also: Philip asked, "I wonder why you state on your website that the piano on this song was programmed rather than played". But the piano was played rather than programmed - as the Hollywood "karaoke" demonstrates. As for Bo Rhap: "Bo Rhap is also a live backing track (I mean, Roger, John and Fred played their parts at the same time and left the take), while the lead vocal is compiled from different tracks and edited". I don't think this is correct either, as the GVH1 "Making of Bo Rhap" extra track, (and the new BBC doc) suggest otherwise. |
| Sebastian 25.07.2004 13:43 |
The one in the Made In Heaven album is edited, as most pianos in the album, and Brian's solo projects. "Programmed rather than played" is incorrect from me. I agree. "Live performance" (as I wrote answering to Phillip) is technically correct for what I meant but can create confusions. I'll avoid that one from now on. "Live recording", on the other hand is a valid term. |
| Lester Burnham 25.07.2004 17:17 |
John S Stuart wrote: Thanks Lester, but the problem is my life is too short to become involved in point-scoring, and wall-pissing competitions, and the sad fact is that I can never win. For example, I have already in previous threads written a little about "The Game", "The Works", "A Kind Of Magic" and "You Don't Fool Me", and in each occassion I have had to "fight" to demonstrate the things I said were "broadly" correct. (See above example). In some cases this has been my own fault. As an academic, I am sure you understand that rather than bore with detailed minutia, to simplify things I have glossed over some details and talked in "broad-brush strokes" about others - but this brings howls of "wrong/inacurate and you are a fraud/cheat/blaggard" or whatever. Then, if I say, I know about this because "I have the acetate" - I am accused of both upsetting the board by showing off - and in turn become a braggard. Finally; much of what I write in Queenzone is stolen and appears on other web pages without as much as a "thank-you", then, when I point out a minor correction - the substitute site - is held up as the authority. (The Bell Boy tape is a good example - as I think someone once wrote to tell me that my track listing was inaccurate!). So there you have it, in sum: I am "damned if I do, and damned if I don't". I am not a gun-slinger, and I do not enjoy "personal pops" - as they do "get" to me. It is a shame - but that's life I suppose!Fortunately, most of us believe you; I have read your posts over the years and have enjoyed every single one, hardly doubting you over minute details. If you were to post a huge thread, it would not only be incredibly informative, but I'm sure the silent majority would appreciate it greatly. It's often rare that a Queen scholar such as yourself appears, and I find fascinating all the information the band is 'hiding' from us. But I understand why you won't post; I just want you to know that most of us will appreciate it, even if there are certain naysayers who pick over every detail. If you were to maybe e-mail me (if you had the time, of course!), I'd greatly appreciate it. I would of course use it for my own uses. Just from one Queen fan to another. |
| Penetration_Guru 25.07.2004 17:39 |
Ahem... Permit me an interjection... Seb & John (& even Brian) could all be right.... Brian is in LA, has an idea (and I agree about the source - his relationship with Anita & his wife, which makes this late 1986), and jots down a few lyrical ideas. On paper. "sketches" if you like. Now, hasn't he said Frank Musker was his therapist? Hypothetically, let's say he is & he's based in NY. So, Brian's staying there, one thing leads to another and a bellboy makes a couple of grand, from the first recordings of this new song... What do we think (in broad brush stroke terms, obviously)? |
| deleted user 25.07.2004 17:55 |
One big thumbs-up to the Guru. |
| John S Stuart 25.07.2004 18:21 |
Two big thumbs up to the Guru. (Although that is what I have been trying to say all along!) "Frank Musker was his therapist...?" I never knew that. You sh*tting me? |
| Sebastian 26.07.2004 00:57 |
As a matter of fact, Brian's quote was: "For the record, as far as I remember, I played piano on ... we began using synthesisers and there were many excursions from all of us into keyboard territory. My main contributions were ... Too Much Love Will Kill You - which was done with Frank Musker up in his house in the canyon LA when we first sketched the song -, No One but You... and of course who Wants To Live forever". So Frank was also in LA, in fact they were at Frank's place. Anyway, I'm not saying "John's right" or "John's wrong", I just say Brian said that. It can be right, or it can be wrong (considering that last years he has said Masterstroke was recorded at Wessex and was part of either Opera or Races, John wrote the bassline of Under Pressure...). So perhaps Brian confused NY with LA, or perhaps from LA they travelled to NY to meet Elizabeth. I'm not drawing any deep conclusion here, keyword: PERHAPS > I don't think this is correct either, as the GVH1 "Making of Bo Rhap" extra track, (and the new BBC doc) suggest otherwise. The documentary says that piano, bass and drums were one take. Remember all Brian's comments about "the feel the energy...". When Fred has a little glitch on the piano he said "who cares it's live", he also mentioend "the take was the take". As for lead vocal compiled from different takes, the documentary doesn't confirm or deny it in any point. Well, it does, in fact. Brian said about Fred in the hard rock section "he's very hoarse and he's double tracked...", so if he was double tracked, then it couldn't be just one take |
| Shane Jazz 26.07.2004 01:52 |
I think the "therapist" tag comes from Brian's comments on TMLWKY after he and Frank recieved an Ivor Novello for the song. He claimed that writing the song was emotional for him and that Frank acted as a kind of therapist in the writing of the song. Frank Musker is an accomplished lyricist who has worked with numerous artists from all over the world. How much he contributed to the music of the song remains to be seen. I do believe that he helped convey some of Brian's emotions into the lyrics. I don't believe Liz Lamers really contributed much in the actual writing of the song. She was given a songwriting credit, however. Anytime Brian mentions the crafting of TMLWKY, he refers to Frank and himself. In fact, only Musker and Brian received the Ivor Novello award. I remember hearing a rumor on the old QMS that Lamers came up with the phrase Too Much Love Will Kill You, and therefore she was given a co-writer credit. But she was obviously there to work on the initial drafts of the song. I've just always wondered if Brian came up with all the music himself, or if Frank contributed at all. The song certainly bears many of Brian's trademarks. But I believe Frank was certainly a "therapist" to Brian then in the way he translated the emotions Brian was conveying to him over his situation into song lyrics. |
| Sebastian 26.07.2004 02:56 |
Yes, Frank is basically a lyricist, but I think he also writes music (e.g. Air Supply's Every Woman In The World). I think some of the lyrics are too proffessional to be Brian's. But as he said, the first keyboard parts were done with Frank, so I guess between the two of them they decided the chords and stuff. Many Brian's trademarks (for example the I>IV/6>vi cliche) are general trademarks of ballad songwriters, nearly everyone uses them. |
| Bohardy 26.07.2004 05:55 |
Sebastian said - "The documentary says that piano, bass and drums were one take. Remember all Brian's comments about "the feel the energy...". When Fred has a little glitch on the piano he said "who cares it's live", he also mentioend "the take was the take". As for lead vocal compiled from different takes, the documentary doesn't confirm or deny it in any point". - All that is true enough in that that is exactly what Brian confirms on the GVHI DVD. In watching the Bo Rhap segment, it is suggested very strongly that Fred, Rog and John recorded the entire backing-track bed of piano, bass and drums in one uninterrupted take. However, Roy Thomas Baker seems to imply otherwise in this article, link, instead suggesting that the Bo Rhap basic backing-track is a composite of 3 different takes from F, R and J. Who knows who to believe? |
| deleted user 26.07.2004 07:09 |
Maybe the one-take thing only refers to the ballad section. |
| John S Stuart 26.07.2004 07:11 |
Who knows who to believe? Your OWN ears! No way was the backing track (as it appears on the album) put down in one take. I accept that Freddie liked to cut things quickly, but John Lennon did too, and what we find with the Beatles is that Lennon's job may have been over in a take or two - but the rest of the band would work around that. Infact, it is common practice for bands to cut safety (or alternative) takes - Queen examples range from "Keep Yourself Alive" to different versions of "The Invisible Man". And whilst, the main track may be intack, Freddie often had to return later to correct or overdub mistakes. But this is where we are becoming too pedantic. I think the memories of these guys are "fairly" sound, and it returns us to the broad-brush strokes thing. Perhaps the big picture is that the first take was fairly sound, and in the main stays, but later it was returned to and re-crafted. That is what Queen are famous for - so I refuse to accept that they ignored to do this in their most famous OTT track! But the truth of the matter is that Borhap did not start off life as one song. It is actually a three act play of three "little" songs stitched together. Now while one section may be "mostly live" that may not be true for others. Here is what you can do. Listen to BoRhap from the 5.1 DVDA, but as each track as a seperate "mono" track. Listen to the operatic section - and you will hear very clearly Roger play kettle drums. These drums fade/merge into the heavy drumroll at the start of the rock section. Now, this effect could only be achieved "electronically" - thus disguising the "stitches" between the opera and rock bit, AFTER they had been completed. At the very least (without the Opera section) which kept growing, we have TWO seperate sections, and it seems fairly obvious that they were cut at seperate occassions, again negating the fact that it could have been completed in one take. As an aside, didn't Brian and Freddie both say that "News Of The World" was an antidote to the previous two albums "Night At The Opera", and "Day At The Races" in that "News" was much more back to basics "WITHOUT the perpetual overdubs... (and) Sleeping on the sidewalk was the first time a track had gone out as a one-take piece?" |
| deleted user 26.07.2004 08:33 |
Great post, John ! However, there's some things in there which I hope I can clear up. <Your OWN ears! No way was the backing track (as it appears on the album) put down in one take.> Agreed. It's obvious that the song was recorded in sections, as confirmed in various interviews (e.g. John on Magic Years 1). <And whilst, the main track may be intack, Freddie often had to return later to correct or overdub mistakes.> <Perhaps the big picture is that the first take was fairly sound, and in the main stays, but later it was returned to and re-crafted. That is what Queen are famous for - so I refuse to accept that they ignored to do this in their most famous OTT track!> <As an aside, didn't Brian and Freddie both say that "News Of The World" was an antidote to the previous two albums "Night At The Opera", and "Day At The Races" in that "News" was much more back to basics "WITHOUT the perpetual overdubs... (and) Sleeping on the sidewalk was the first time a track had gone out as a one-take piece?" > First of all, one shouldn't confuse overdubs with patching up backing tracks. Overdubs come on top of the finished backing track. I think that the story about BohRhap's backing track being a one-take is essentially true. The backing track in question, however, isn't the entire song, but the first/ballad section. The thing is that most of Queen's backing tracks in the 1970s were recorded in one take. It was common practice for them, Boh Rhap wouldn't be an exception. Please note it's not a FIRST take, it's a one take which could have been anything between take 2 and take 54. They simply would play the whole thing (or a particular segment of a song) over and over again in its entirety until it would be perfect. They didn't start "dropping in" and thus saving enormous amounts of time recording the backing tracks until they started working with Mack in 1979. Before, the lion's share of backing tracks was essentially a "live" recorded one-take, consisting of drums, bass, piano and/or guitar. They would record an awful lot of stuff on top of that, but the original backing track usually wasn't tempered with. The thing about Sleeping On The Sidewalk wasn't the fact that it was a one-track piece, but that they used the very first take recorded ! Again, it's only the backing track, not the entire song. The vocals were recorded separately. Furthermore the backing track of SOTS didn't end up on the album as it was recorded, but there was an awful lot of editing after the event. It's thus an exception in several ways. To conclude: Bohemian Rhapsody was recorded in sections and the backing tracks of the individual sections (of the ballad and the rock section at least. The opera one is something different probably)were one-takes (not first takes), as it used to be Queen's usual procedure in those days. |
| Sebastian 26.07.2004 08:46 |
The thing is that, according to what Brian showed (backing track) in the documetary, it looks like it was done just at once from the beginning to the end. For example, at the end of the opera section the piano plays the Bb chord and then goes to play the hard rock part, and it doesn't change the take. Now, that can also be theoretically achieved with a very good mixing job, to create that "one take" (not neccesarily the first) feeling. But yes that contradicts the "extension" theory that Roy said about the song (about the opera section growing). So, perhaps Brian said it was a live backing track just to avoid further explanations about how did it grow. |
| John S Stuart 26.07.2004 08:58 |
Philipp Nothaft: Thanks Philipp, that clears thing up. I think we all agree regrarding the main points. Even in the Bible, the gospels agree Jesus was crucified, but some witers say he wore a red cloak, while another says he wore purple cloak. Now if you chose to believe the Bible, you could argue that they all roughly tally in that he wore a cloak and was crucified. (This may be a bad example coming from a non-believer). But, the essential truth remains, that roughly, Bo Rhap is an edit job, and could not be played live - either in the stadium or the studio, and whilst some bits of the skeleton remain, other bits have been cosmetically fleshed over. I find it all fascinating, and wish I knew more, but I don't think we can guarantee to know exactly from where each note stems from. Good post though! |
| deleted user 26.07.2004 09:27 |
Thanks to you as well, John. I'm still in awe over your Batman-quote on another thread. <The thing is that, according to what Brian showed (backing track) in the documetary, it looks like it was done just at once from the beginning to the end. For example, at the end of the opera section the piano plays the Bb chord and then goes to play the hard rock part, and it doesn't change the take.> But even among the quotes on your website there are bits of Brian and John saying that it was recorded in sections. <Now, that can also be theoretically achieved with a very good mixing job, to create that "one take" (not neccesarily the first) feeling.> Not only theoretically, Seb. See the following article, it clears up so much: link <But yes that contradicts the "extension" theory that Roy said about the song (about the opera section growing). So, perhaps Brian said it was a live backing track just to avoid further explanations about how did it grow.> It's both true at the same time. The thing is that the opera section wasn't actually part of the backing track. They simply left a 30 seconds piece of blank space on the tape. There's no reason to doubt Roy's words, as Brian doesn't really explicitely contradict it. There were just two backing tracks: The ballad part up to the opera section and the entire part after the opera section. It's as simple as that. |
| Adam Baboolal 26.07.2004 09:44 |
You know, I can't wait to see the docu in September now. Heeheee! Peace, Adam. |
| MisterCosmicc 06.10.2018 14:06 |
Yes |
| bucsateflon 13.02.2019 20:35 |
So I was strolling around in the comments section of this song on youtube while I was listening to the greatest Brian May solo ever put on a Queen track and immediately stumble onto this bunch of retards:
LeToplache007 1 year ago This song is underrated, but I think the reason is that the song didn't have that Freddie's perfection to finish the song how it could have because of his illnes. Rest in piece, legend! 477 likes replies to the comment: Daniël's Tech & Music Channel 1 year ago It also should be noted that this basically wasn't a song Queen had imagined. The song was basically pieced together by the band manager David Richards, from pieces of left over recordings. He basically created the framework of the song, then the rest of the band finished it up. It's pretty amazing that this song was made from left overs and is still so good. 73likes Veronica Bell 9 months ago I think because it sounds like a remix....still a good beat...but not Freddie..you can hear the vocal remix if you listen closely...not totally Freddie! Bought and borrowed Freddie! 9likes floit 1980 8 months ago This is Brian May version. I'd like to hear John Deacon's. It's nonsense that this song is was built from pieces. Freddie Mercury is singing it, you can't create that from pieces. Maybe one day technology will make that possible and we'll have new songs by Freddie Mercury, Lennon,... However, these songs won't be great because they won't be written by them. That's why geniuses like Mercury were unique. The melody/structure was already done by Freddie. 26likes luisalonsoecheverria 7 months ago This song dates all the way back to the Hot Space era. 5 Kamil Rudziewicz 4 months ago Do you feel the pain and sadness in his voice? 16likes DGM 3 months ago It sounds like a demo that was edited and remixed. If they had more more time, they would have written more lyrics and recorded cleaner vocals with better instrumentation. But as things stand, it sounds all right, and I like the melody. 4 Nicey Warner 1 week ago @floit 1980 Freddy recorded this song for his own album "Mr. Bad guy" it didn't make the cut. Their manager pieced together the song. The remaining members added their instruments on the track to make it a "Queen" song |
| Thistle 14.02.2019 07:28 |
^ And then a retard came and pasted them into a 15 year old topic on a Queen forum. Great job, dickless. |
| Martin Packer 14.02.2019 08:26 |
On YDFM, I always thought Freddie's voice was slowed down. But not enough to make a short track long. On TMLWKY, I suspect the emotions were in Brian's head BEFORE he met Anita. Other songs of his suggest to me his marriage was in trouble from way longer. For example, Save Me. Though I wouldn't take the lyrics too seriously. (And actually I don't want to speculate about his private life, except in so far as it influences his art.) |
| dysan 14.02.2019 08:40 |
Youtube comment sections are the 10th circle of hell. |
| Donald Trump 16.02.2019 12:01 |
One of the few really bad shitty Queen tracks |