juls 12.10.2004 05:51 |
While writing a thread to the Hot Space ressurection topic, I realised that Hot Space is mixed quite good (the sound, I mean). So I would like to know of you, what is in your opinion the best sounding Queen album. I think that "Jazz" is mixed down quite good, hey, for a 26 years old recording! you can hear all instruments very good throughout the whole album - on "Queen II" some parts seems to be overloaded. The worst mix - sorry for the word "worst" in relation to Queen - is (of course maybe) the first album. Although always critizised, I like the drum mix of Night comes Down. IMHO: SHA, ANATO and ADATR sound very "full", on some songs a bit too "fat" (White Man), NOTW is very transparent, good mixed. Flash Gordon is okay, for a soundtrack. The Game is clear too, good mix, but sounds very different to all previous albums (thanks to Mack), just like Hot Space, which is very loud in the mix (especially "Side One"). The Works' mix is for me a real disappointment - the "Human fights against the puter"-thing did not work really good IMHO. A Kind of Magic is a very good mixdown, The Miracle too - although I dislike the sound of some instruments, Innuendo sounds fine, very balanced, Made in Heaven has some weak songs (in the mix), I dont really like the drum sound, or the homogenity of the instruments (IMO!) Now it's your turn :) |
deleted user 12.10.2004 05:54 |
hmmmm.....don't like the oldies albums |
Regor 12.10.2004 07:00 |
Queen: sounds even older than it is, for example steely dan records from the same era (very early 70s) although they had a different musical approach sound much clearer and crispier, more transparent. very early genesis records sound equally old (not bad, but... old) It sounds like Queen in a box. QueenII: this record of course wasnt supposed to sound thin, or edgy or funky - it is like a creampie, a fat wall of sound and IMHO one if not THE best Queen album. Sound fits. SHA, ANATO, ADATR: definite Queen-sound of the 70s, atmospheric, multitracked, full of echoes and overdubs but at the same time cristalclear and even light in some cases. with a tendency to sound thicker in ADATR, yes. but still absolutely transparent despite all those multitracked takes. NOTW: raw, evil, dirty, great. still very clear, the drums kinda creep in your ear. Jazz: i hate the drums on that album, and in some cases it sounds all too dry, as years later on The Miracle. I DO like dry sounds for some bands, but not so much for (at least 70's)Queen. whereas on The Game: the songs get funkier so the dry sound fits now - listen to dragon attack with headphones and you think you are with the band in the studio, jamming around. songwise, the edgy sound fits now. Hot Space: this album is way better than its image but it seems they couldnt agree on an overall sound. very diverse. dunno, really... The Works: The (few) guitars sound really great, really hard-edged, I do like the basic sound of the album, but it is one of my least favourite in general. but that's not due to the sound. AKOM: Too much. Of everything. Fits only on a few tracks. Dont lose your head is really atmospheric and pretty much of its time and Princes of course rocks, but in general its just too overflown with thick keyboards. Not as bad as many think, though, cause its sounds that cinematic for obvious reasons... The Miracle: too dry, not big enough IMHO. Except for WIAWI of course. Innuendo: Perfect ! Nuff said ! MIH: what sounds naturally atmospheric on Innuendo is IMO too artificial on MIH. Too many delays, echoes and tweeting birds, every effect on the album seems to say: look, he's dead, it has to sound like this... |
juls 12.10.2004 07:39 |
Regor, I absolutely agree with your statements. The Jazz album is very dry on drums, thats true, but I find the drum sound here better than on some 80s productions. You are right with The Game, which is thanks Mack a very authentic sound. And your MIH statement, thank you for that, you hit the nail on the head... Somehow the MIH album sounds "far", it is not close or tight, and is full of effects (delays, reverbs, synths), which I detest in general. The sound of old albums isnt always bad, as you said correctly, I love the sound of Deep Purples Machine Head album, or Beatles' Revolver, Led Zeppelins IV,... but Queen I. is very poor. I really like the songs, but I disagree with the engineers, seems they just told the band "record it and go home, we will do everything later on". I even like the Beeb versions more in terms of mix , setup and sound. Although the Beeb isn't good really IMO |
juls 12.10.2004 07:43 |
by the way, i almost forgot: keep in mind that Roger tends to change his drum kits setup. He is the only one who is not true to his sound :) While John used max. 3kinds of basses, and Brian plays the Red Special on about 95% of the songs, Roger has used more kits... (oh Sebastian help, you know it!!! *g* ) |
Penis - Vagina 12.10.2004 15:25 |
A tie between News of the World & The Game, taking into account all the masters I've heard, the 2001 remasters of these two are the very best sounding Queen albums. |
juls 12.10.2004 15:53 |
$1241.60 wrote: A tie between News of the World & The Game, taking into account all the masters I've heard, the 2001 remasters of these two are the very best sounding Queen albums.One question, is there a remarkable difference between the Remastered Albums of 2001 and the "original" albums of 1993/1994? |
brENsKi 12.10.2004 16:09 |
would love to hear II in dvd-a then we'll know just how magnificent Freddie's Side Black was but for now i think Races will shine on DVD-a1 |
Penis - Vagina 12.10.2004 16:33 |
I can't compare them with the U.K. masters of 93/94 since I never heard those. I'm basing those on 3 versions: 1991 Hollywood (NOTW is quite good but still pales in comparison to 2001, The Game is very weak and 'thin' sounding) 1998 Mini LP sleeves (both suffer a flat, dull sound due to the noise reduction) 2001 Japanese remasters (stunningly clear and dynamic, a world of difference) But I think it's safe to assume the U.K. remasters don't hold a candle to the 2001s in regards to these two. **link deleted, needed the space, sorry if it's quoted** |
juls 12.10.2004 17:46 |
$1241.60 wrote: I can't compare them with the U.K. masters of 93/94 since I never heard those. I'm basing those on 3 versions: 1991 Hollywood (NOTW is quite good but still pales in comparison to 2001, The Game is very weak and 'thin' sounding) 1998 Mini LP sleeves (both suffer a flat, dull sound due to the noise reduction) 2001 Japanese remasters (stunningly clear and dynamic, a world of difference) But I think it's safe to assume the U.K. remasters don't hold a candle to the 2001s in regards to these two. linkThank you for your information! It's a pity that there are so many releases and remasters, and I remember that the Hollywood records have lots of little errors (cuts, missing parts). I live in Germany, so I guess the UK series you mentioned is the same as here available with the sleeve and CD printed in the Netherlands :) The ones that are remastered in Abbey Road... Where the heck did they remaster the Japanese editions, or who was the engineer? Would be funny if the Japanese and the UK remasters are the same... Well anyway, thanks a lot again for your help! |
juls 12.10.2004 17:48 |
$1241.60, just listening to the Fight from the Inside... Hell this sounds very crisp :) Is this the Japanese one? |
Penis - Vagina 12.10.2004 18:18 |
In 1998 the first 8 studio albums were remastered at Abbey Road using this no-noise crap. Those were released in Japan, the U.K. and the U.S. as card sleeves. Each title separate in Japan, in two sets of four in the U.K., and in one boxed set in the U.S. called 'The Crown Jewels' The 2001 remasters (this time for all albums) were also done at Abbey Road, this time without the no-noise and by Peter Mew who also did the Freddie solo collection. They were released as regular CDs in Japan that year. The studio albums from these remasters were released as card sleeves, again in Japan earlier this year (and also mass-imported to the U.K. for sale there) Going back to the Hollywood remasters, the two discs which had missing bits (SHA and NOTW)were mastered by Kevin Metcalfe, who has been one of Queen's own masterists for worldwide releases... so it wasn't Hollywood's fault. And they quickly replaced them with corrected versions. Kevin is also to blame for the legendary Fat Bottomed Girls glitch on the 1994 'Jazz' remaster which emerged again on 'Rocks' and even on CD singles, all without being caught and corrected. The guy is obviously a moron. Yes, that's a combo of Fight From the Inside & Dragon Attack, both from the 2001 remasters. |
GonnaUseMyPrisoners 13.10.2004 00:33 |
I always thought Jazz sounded really great on VINYL, but definitely lost something in the transition to CD. Mustapha in particular (I know Lisa J Goodrich agreed with me in that there was a big difference in that track). The Game is probably my favorite, if unconventional, sound - I'm a Mack fan - give me ELO, Billy Squier, After The Fire (!!!) and the Queen LPs from that era any day! |
Regor 13.10.2004 02:54 |
juls, thanx for your comments. I could go on for hours about MIH, not only about the sound but the album in general. I think it must have been discussed here several times before but maybe I'll start a thread about it someday... Anyway, back to the sound-thing: yeah, Mack really was at the right time at the right place. The Game sounds magnificent. And after also contributing to the Hot Space discussion I have to explain my aforementioned statement: I always liked it in the first place. I am an album-fetishist, and I want to listen to an album and get sucked in by it. Some albums after a proper mix and mastering can really capture you with a certain common atmosphere created by the overall sound-"coating" for the respective songs. Some albums just can't (The Works IMO). Hot Space sure can. The songs really do work in their context and the atmophere is quite steamy, clubby, if you like. So what I was refferring to was the very dry synthetic sound of Staying Power compared to the more open sounding Back Chat (the tight bass is contrasted by the reverb on guitar and some of the percussion-elements) or the jamsession-mood of Under Pressure as examples for different types of songs with very different required basic-sounds. But it is actually tied together by the mastering and sounds like an evening in a club or something. Even the more rockorientated songs sound pretty intense, perhaps mainly due to Freddies Vocal-Work. So Hot Space for me falls into the category of albums with a certain atmoshere from the first bar to the last, its just very diverse in itself. On other albums this diversity leads to sounding like a compilation. Here it fits. I would also really like to see a list of the different sets Roger used. Especially why the very early ones sounded that crappy ! I mean, John Bonham already had the big sound in the late 60s... |
juls 13.10.2004 05:52 |
$1241.60, thank you very much for your information! I have to admit I never spend a thought on the different remaster series, because I have the vinyls - most of them original ones - and just bought the CDs from time to time, to complete the CD collection and to rip them on my PC. I think I will have to buy the NOTW and Game, maybe Jazz as a Japanese remaster, because that's stunning :) Thanks a lot again for your help!! Regor, correct! Steamy club :) That's absolutely right, the atmosphere on the album fits to the smell of porn, steam and sweat, and I dare to say that on vinyl the sound (nearly of all albums in general) was better. Hooo, some ppl. think I'm mad, but CD sound is always compressed, flatened, normalized, voluminized, misses the ambience. I am vinyl fetishist. And the Side 1/Side 2-thing works on vinyl! You know that a MIH-discussion will polarize as much as a Hot Space-discussion?! :) I remember the "last track"-thread, where some people thought it is blasphemy to critize *g* About the drums - well, Sebastian had a nice list of kits on his page before, unfortunately this is not longer online. I remember BM on GVH1 CD2 - Making of Rhapsody saying, that they used direct microphoning on the first tracks, which means they mic'ed the bass drum, snare, each tom and a overhead - and to add the reverb afterwards, to gain the ambience. Later on they used some ambience mikes which were around the drumkit, too. Well I'm no drummer, but what you say is right, John Bonham or Ian Paice have a very big drumsound, and even recorded in the same studio! I will do some research on that. |
Fenderek 13.10.2004 08:48 |
The Miracle for me... And Jazz... And ADATR... |
Rotwang 13.10.2004 11:28 |
I personally like the "live" sound of The Game. By far John's best album as a whole. This started Freddie's strong, rough rock vocals. This is, however, probably Brian's least interesting album. But mix and sound, it's probably my favorite for the rock sound. |
Giacco 73 13.10.2004 18:23 |
It's "A Night at the Opera" for me. |
Nationofhaircuts 14.10.2004 04:23 |
i'm very curious for those 2001 remasters! when they're a lot better than those hollywood ones i'd like to replace them. but in the end...........vinyl...it bangs through your speakers like nothing else.............. |
Regor 14.10.2004 04:42 |
juls wrote: Regor, correct! Steamy club :) That's absolutely right, the atmosphere on the album fits to the smell of porn, steam and sweat, and I dare to say that on vinyl the sound (nearly of all albums in general) was better. Hooo, some ppl. think I'm mad, but CD sound is always compressed, flatened, normalized, voluminized, misses the ambience. I am vinyl fetishist. And the Side 1/Side 2-thing works on vinyl! You know that a MIH-discussion will polarize as much as a Hot Space-discussion?! :) I remember the "last track"-thread, where some people thought it is blasphemy to critize *g* About the drums - well, Sebastian had a nice list of kits on his page before, unfortunately this is not longer online. I remember BM on GVH1 CD2 - Making of Rhapsody saying, that they used direct microphoning on the first tracks, which means they mic'ed the bass drum, snare, each tom and a overhead - and to add the reverb afterwards, to gain the ambience. Later on they used some ambience mikes which were around the drumkit, too. Well I'm no drummer, but what you say is right, John Bonham or Ian Paice have a very big drumsound, and even recorded in the same studio! I will do some research on that.I'm a Vinyl-fetishist as well ! The first european digital remasters were awful, so I kept most of my vinyl at the time, luckily ! Yep, the album sounds like the Body Language video looks... ;-) I know that a possible MIH-discussion will polarize, but I cant get the album out of my head for various reasons... but MIH is not the holy grail, the real last album and swansong was Innuendo IMHO, but I'll stop it here... have to start it someday, when I have the guts ! :-) Sebastians list was great - I understand his reasons for the new site, but it would've been great if he had at least kept the old one online... anyway: I tend to think it can not only be the mic'ing, as the basic sound of the toms on "Queen" is just so different, with a long natural reverb from the shell, making it sound like a deep, bended tone - and Rog was very perfectionist in terms of tuning, so it's strange that his personal taste was to become so different within a year (fuller sound, but less reverb from the shell itself) - but I could be wrong. Sounds interesting as a topic, looking forward to the outcome of your research. |
juls 14.10.2004 05:45 |
Okay, I found one hint on the drum miking - for all who remember Roy Thomas Baker: an interview with him, about the recording sessions to Bohemian Rhapsody. ---- POSITIONING & MIKING How were the Queen band members positioned in relation to each other for the backing track? "Roger Taylor sat behind his drum kit at the live end of the studio and John Deacon was against the wall, with his Marshall bass stack on the right-hand side as you looked out of the control room window. Brian was in a portable isolation booth and Freddie was at the piano, close to the window. "We weren't into multiple snare miking back then, so there was just a single mic on the snare. We tended to use mostly condenser mics at that time and generally Neumann U67s or U87s on the toms and overhead. The transformation between U67s or U87s was going on at that point and studios usually had one or the other. An AKG D12 was used on the bass drum. They were the days before the D112, which seems to be the standard now. John's bass was DI'd. Studios tended to make up their own DI boxes then, because no manufacturers appeared to be making them. They weren't active DI boxes either; people would make them with a transformer sticking out of the end with wires going all over the place. There was always a slight sound loss when you plugged them into the amp, so we had to compensate for that. We also used an Electro-Voice 666 and sometimes a Neumann U67 condenser on John's cabinet to pick up a bit of air. "I was standing at the back of the control room and you just knew that you were listening for the first time to a big page in history. Something inside me told me that this was a red letter day, and it really was." "Freddie's piano was miked with two Neumann U67s and we also set up a Shure mic for his guide vocal. He didn't sing all the way through the backing track takes, just the first couple of words of each line as a reference for the band." But, as ever, much experimentation was undertaken before Brian May's guitar sound was perfected. "We used to have a few different types of mics set up, from which we would choose or blend signals for any one given sound, and it's a technique that I still use today. Brian's Vox AC30 amps were backless, so we also set up some mics behind them and near the wall, to capture some ambience and the full spectrum of the guitar sound. There was always a lot of experimentation going on during our sessions. Brian generally used AC30s but John Deacon had also thrown together something like a Tandy Radio Shack speaker with a 3 Watt amplifier, and we tried that with a treble booster. We tried putting microphones down metal and concrete tubes to get more of a honky sound, and it all seemed to work. It certainly all stands up today when I hear it all again." "On Queen II and some of the big Queen themes, especially 'Bohemian Rhapsody', the generation copies caused so much distortion on Roger's drum tracks that it became a trademark sound in itself -- which people have since tried to copy with outboard equipment. Even today, people are still trying to recreate that in-your-face distortion with machinery! So by accident we started a trend without even knowing it, in the same way that with an electric guitar, if you turn it up to 10, you'll hear distortion. But that became the band's sound." ----- You can find the whole, very interesting article on link Have fun! |
Hitman 14.10.2004 06:15 |
uhm interesting topic. Personally i like the sounds on Made in Heaven, though i can't listen the hidden track cos i find it boring :P i don't like too much sounds on queen 2, it sounds very 70s ;) and the too disco oriented sounds of hot space. But it's just a matter of tastes, cos i like many songs from these albums! |
gabriel79 14.10.2004 12:01 |
best sound?well....i hate the drums from jazz.maybe best sound is news of the world.dry |
Polar Bear 14.10.2004 20:36 |
Excellent thread!! Part of the problem with roger's differing drum sounds is that on the early records, Queen in particular, he was burdened with the 'Trident' sound, where all the drums were tuned to sound quite dead and dull and all the same pitch. You can here it particually clearly on Great King Rat and Doin' Alright. Then if you listen to The Night Comes Down, you'll notice a dicernable difference, due to the fact this was recorded at De Lane Lea with Louie Austin engineering as opposed to Roy Baker and John Anthony producing. Now this is rather well noted elsewhere but it was not a choice that the band were fond of, roger in particular. you can hear what his drums would have sounded like by choice if you listen to the early live bootlegs. Anyway back to the original topic at hand, I decided to put on an original pressing of Queen (New Zealand Elektra pressing in the red sleeve to be precise !!) and I'd have to say that i rather like the mix, always have, it's got a great feeling to it. This is vinyl of course so it has that warmth to it. It's obviusly not as crisp as the Game or Hot Space and the Works, but it would sound crap if it was. The mix fits the music very well, it;s nto over produced and you can hear everything clearly. John's bass is always too low in the mix in future Queen releases, here it is loud and full, nice tone and decent definition, of course it being on vinyl helps that. Queen II is pretty good March of the Black Queen comes across really well, decent definition, it's more a preogression form Queen than anything really, taking the warm wall of noise idea a bit further. Not my favourite album but again I like the sound, warm. Sheer Heart Attack is superb, crisper than the first too but still really a warm tone and ambience, slightly more defined though, I really like the mix on this, whenever I think of favourite mix this comes to mind, it has a great sound to it, sort of the watershed before A night at the Opera and A Day at the Races really. A night at the Opera and A Day at the Races are both mixed in the same way. Very full, amazing amout of overdubs obviously, a little less defined than SHA, of course they are far more covered in overdubs. Not my favourite sounding records, although The Prophets song is superbly produced, as of course is Bo Rhap. I think Death On Too Legs didn't sound as good as it could have. it sounds like the instruments are a bit constrained, trying to get out and be a bit heavier, sounds a bit compressed really. News Of the World is very raw, goes back to that warmth thing, again very similar somehow to Sheer Heart Attack, warm yet crisp. the piano in My Melancholy blues and the all of Fight From the Inside are ver defined and great to listen to in particular. The album jumps out of the speakers, it is very alive. JAzz falls into the same category as ANATO and ADATR for me, the drums in More of That Jazz sound good to me, but the rest of the album they sound a bit flat in terms of production, could do with more room sound in them. The Game is the first really crisp sounding, a bit mechanical really, but suits a lot fo tracks, dragon Attack and Crazy Little thing sound great. Not my favourite sounding record, but it is obviously well produced, the tracks are a bit more sparse and thus more defined. Sounds good and certainly modern. Flash is funny, not Queen's crowning achievment but tracks like The Hero are obviously well prodiced, the Wedding MArch sounds better than any wedding march before or since, the guitars are mic'ed very well. Again a bit more modern, but also of it's time. Hot Space. if only they had taken some of the Synths off the songs would have sounded as good as the production. Really a lot of these songs have been recorded and mixed really well. Cool Cat, for instance, the sound on that song is really great, same goes for Put out the Fire (not a great song mind) and Calling All Girls. The Works, the less said the better |
Polar Bear 14.10.2004 20:49 |
As an amendement, the drums on Queen II are fucking amazing great deep tone, he's obviously using big arse toms on that kit. they ring and sound great. The snare is crisp and defined and the cymbals have a nice shimmer. fantastic. |
juls 15.10.2004 05:14 |
Very nice analysis, and I am happy to read every comment especially on the analogue side of recording. The Trident drums sound was indeed a trademark, bt did not fit the quite fat, over-the-top productions Queen made in the early years. The Trident drum sound comes really good on albums, where you have defined guitar, bass, organ as backing track, without doing millions of overdubs, because the drum sound is very near to the speakers, very deep indeed, which much attack, but no room or ambience. It fits the Deep Purple "In Rock" more than Queen I. And indeed, the Queen II album sound has very deep toms, I think Roger played the drum kits seen on the early Queen "videos" |
Regor 15.10.2004 06:32 |
Juls, thanks for the link, the article is very interesting to read ! While reading it I remembered to have a "Sound Check"-magazine from early '91 with an in-depth coverage of the "Innuendo-Sessions", including comments from engineer Noel Harris. Hopefully I can find it to post it here. PolarBear, thanks for the information on "The night comes down" being recorded at De Lane Lea - because what I was referring to with my opinion on the long reverb from the shell was actually "Liar". Was that one also recorded at De Lane Lea ? It sounds definetely bigger but the pitch (with the bending tone) and characteristics sound a bit cheap to me, but of course thats only IMHO. But if asked to choose, I'd rather have this than the dead sound from Trident. Anyway, Rog sounded best from SHA to Hot Space on, I think. "Great King Rat" really is the best example for "Trident" sound, in the long drum outro the tom-toms sound almost like a bassdrum - one can hardly separate the toms from each other. Great thread, let's get deeper into it. |
juls 15.10.2004 07:28 |
Regor, would be really nice if you could post the article here! The night comes down is def. the only one on Queen I which they took from the De Lane Lea - "they wre unhappy the way it was recorded at Trident so they took the demo" - now, you can imagine how "great" the sound is at Trident. They are not bad at all, in general, Trident is a mixing console and recording devices company, which had their own studio. The B-console is a big thing in the early 70s! But not really the best choice for recording multiple tracks, because they had a low dynamic range on the tracks (see distorted tracks) - the Telefunken was better, it has track 1 and 8 twice as wide as the usual recording machines. The Ampex/Scotch thing is another story... |
juls 15.10.2004 07:57 |
By the way, on the first album the engineers recorded the drum kit without any ambience microphoning, and put on the reverb afterwards - best example is maybe Doin all right and Great Kign Rat, where you can hear, the whole backing track is reverbed! But on this songs the drum sounds very defined... I think the big problem is the general reverb on everything! On Jesus you can hear the Vox amp has a white noise - a shame that they did not edit it, although they had the possibility to use a limiter/compressor. Take a listen to the solo part, the distorted guitar is over level (and thats sure it was not meant to be!). Such little things can make a record really a bit cheap. The more guitars they recorded, the cheaper the drum sound becomes - you can hear the volume of the drums is going up and down... My fairy king is full of reverbs too. No ambience microphones were used, so the engineers made it afterwards. Thats why the drums sound so unbalanced. Well tuned, but not balanced. I find the toms sound quite good - on Fairy King they are very distant - but the bass drum and the snare is just mud (see KYA for example, where even the tambourine is clearer than the bass drum, except in the drum solo bit - and that although John is playing very tight to the bass drum) A shame that they used a tape phase on the drums on Liar! And a compressor!! You can hear, the drum has only attack, but no ambience and natural reverb at all. The hi-hat is very there... the bass guitar is sure recorded with mic, and has no power at all, only gets distorted in Johns "solo" bit. We know that Queen only had very little time in the studios in those days, because they could only use the studios when no other band was in there. So the recordings were done quite in a rush... EDIT: Queen used a 16-track-recorder for the first three albums... |
juls 16.10.2004 06:56 |
Here's a bit from a Roger interview in Modern Drummer, you might know it already "Actually, it all comes down to miking. Today, it's not uncommon to overmike drums. I mean, putting 15 mic's around the kit is absurd. All the best drum sounds I've ever got came from using four mic's or five. " "RS: When Queen goes into the recording studio to record an album, what's your role? RT: I'm totally elastic. The whole thing is down to the song. "What does the song need?" is themain question. Whatever it needs, I'll do it. If it needs a heavy sound, we'll put the mic's in the right places, but won't use too many of them. The size of my kit is important, too. Sometimes I just use a snare, bass drum and hi-hat. But other times I'll use a big kit with a lot of tom-toms. I try to remain flexible. RS: So you don't have one particular or favourite set of drums that you usually use in the studio? RT: No. I have kits I tend to use more than others. I have an amazing Gretch kit in our studio over in Switzerland. It's got three toms, a snare and bass drum. It's a great sounding kit. Some kits sound great; others don't. RS: What kit do you use on stage? RT: It changes all the time, but I use Ludwig because they've been sending them to me for quite some time. I have a single bass drum and a selection of toms from small to big. I've always tended to use big drums, which is something I'm getting away from. RS: Why's that? RT: They're so difficult to mike. They tend to be somewhat unclear and less defined than smaller drums, I think. Stewart Copeland sort of provided the value of small drums. He gets a nice, snappy sound out of those small drums. It's something I've always argued with Ludwig about. They made their drums wide, but they never made them very deep. Today, virtually all drums are as deep as they are wide. The depth of drums is important. I also usually use a Simmons kit sprinkled around my kit. I use a couple of "RotoToms" as well. Instead of using them as toms, I use them as timbales because they seem to cut through real nice. As for cymbals, I use Zildjian and a few Paistes. I always change my cymbals around on each tour to sort of suit the mood. RS: What's your philosophy when it comes to cymbals? RT: It seems to be very fashionable these days to say, "Oh, I didn't use any cymbals on this record." I love cymbals. I think they're great. They provide wonderful dynamics. Quite often, I'll overdub very specific cymbals. Freddie Mercury has a cymbal fetish as well. Cymbals are very important; you have to know which ones to use in which places. RS: On stage, it seems as if you play your drums extremely loud. RT: I do in studio as well, unless a song calls for something else, of course. I'm not, however, one of those telegraph merchants. I don't believe you need those massive sticks, because if you've got decent wrists, which I think any decent drummer should have, the snap comes from there. That's what makes it loud. Also, you've got to be able to do perfect rimshots. That's what makes the drums loud, not eight-foot long telegraph poles." taken from link |
Regor 19.10.2004 04:43 |
The night comes down sounds more ambient, but I still don't like the overall sound of the set as such - DeLaneLea is definitely preferable: as you said, one can clearly hear the added reverbs from the Trident-Sessions and it really sounds cheap-artificial. But still the set as such, apart from the studio - I still wonder what kind of kit that was ? Thanks for the link - interesting Rog mentions Stewart Copeland in the interview who sort of is the antithesis to Rogers approach. I do like The Police a lot, but of course the minimalistic thing was not really Queens attitude towards recording in the first place. But he refers to Copeland, which actually fits to the overall tighter Queen-sound from '78-'82, the era when Police was huge ! To translate the "Sound Check" article is quite a task and will take some time - watch this space ! :-) |
juls 19.10.2004 05:29 |
Regor, link Look, there is a 4-piece kit, a 1971 built custom Ludwig, used by Roger |
Regor 19.10.2004 06:03 |
Thanks, that's great - where do you get this kind of information from ??? Or is it just me not using Google to full extent ?! ;-) Reminds me of the finish Rog used on the '82-Tour. What about the 3-ring pattern-thing - does that refer to the 3 different woods in the shell ? And did he play it from 1971 to, let's say 1974 ? Or did he just use that pattern from Ludwig '71 at some undefined time in Queens career ? |
juls 19.10.2004 06:08 |
Well, that was a thing I thought about too. When did he use it... We know that he always used different kits on tour, but as far as I remember he used Ludwig quite a lot in the studio. He also used Slingerland, Gretsch later Yamaha etc. I guess we never know unless we ask him per email :) Btw, I used google for that using the keyword "Ludwig Roger Taylor drums -duran" ;-) |
Regor 20.10.2004 04:20 |
I'm gonna check some old pics to see what kits he used in the very early shows. Maybe Sebastian can tell us, what kind of kits he used in the studio. |