| Munchsack 18.11.2005 04:40 |
I personally love Hammer To Fall, but I thought the version on ROTC was quite poor. It's supposed to be a heavy song. |
| Fenderek 18.11.2005 08:52 |
I like it. Different. Vocal harmonies in choruses in the slow bit are absolutely amazing. paul's performance of the second verse is brilliant. |
| PieterMC 18.11.2005 08:55 |
I think the new version is actually better than the old version. |
| shootingstar 18.11.2005 09:04 |
As Brian has repeatedly said, he strives to interpret the songs on this tour in a slighty different manner while simultanteously holding a candle to the originals. I think this is a rather perfect example of that. And I agree Fenderek--Paul's vocals in the second verse are such that they make 'rockiness' in the last half that much more visceral. Well done, I would say. While we should never discount the original recordings, I feel it is appropriate to at least consider what is currently offered to us in the context of this new dynamic. |
| Erin 18.11.2005 11:37 |
Fenderek<br><h6>Not a REAL fan</h6> wrote: Vocal harmonies in choruses in the slow bit are absolutely amazing.Yes..and no stupid backup singers doing the harmonies this time..:-) |
| kohuept 18.11.2005 15:19 |
The version is great, but it was not an interpretation for this tour. Brian has been doing it for years. In fact, on one of his tours, he slowed down the entire song. He and Roger have performed the half-and-half version twice, at least, before this tour. In LA for the WoF gig and in Amsterdam on Queen's Day. |
| That guy who digs energy domes 18.11.2005 16:12 |
Hammer to fall F*CKING RULES! But the Paul Rogdgers version sucks.................like normal....................Christ, nothing changes *sigh* |
| rockyracoon 18.11.2005 16:28 |
Maybe some of you know the answer to this, but I suspect Hammer to Fall is one of those songs which Brian originally intended to be a ballad, but Freddie, strongly disliking Brian's ballads, insisted on cranking up to heavy rock. Initially I didn't care for the song, as I thought it too noisy and musically too elementary. But over time I really began to appreciate the lyrics. Then after seeing the Wembley '86 performance, I began to consider it one of my favorites. I have an even greater appreciation for the song after seeing and hearing Brian and Paul sing the first half of it as a ballad, which somehow seems to expose the song's deeper meaning. Seeing the second half of the song performed as a rock song then enables the viewer/listener to take in the full scope of the song's potential, as well as Queen's talent. I give the half and half version a strong thumbs up. |
| The Stealer 18.11.2005 17:51 |
Erin wrote:They were horrid!!!Fenderek<br><h6>Not a REAL fan</h6> wrote: Vocal harmonies in choruses in the slow bit are absolutely amazing.Yes..and no stupid backup singers doing the harmonies this time..:-) |
| The Stealer 18.11.2005 17:54 |
Fenderek<br><h6>Not a REAL fan</h6> wrote: I like it. Different. Vocal harmonies in choruses in the slow bit are absolutely amazing. paul's performance of the second verse is brilliant.Yes- Indeed!! I have always (until the QPR Version) disliked this song-ever since it came out on The Works--I pretty much dislike most songs on The Works- except "GA GA"-- |
| The Stealer 18.11.2005 17:56 |
Queen Of Wrestling wrote: Hammer to fall F*CKING RULES! But the Paul Rogdgers version sucks.................like normal....................Christ, nothing changes *sigh*It's not "Paul Rodgers version" it's Brian May's alternate Version to be more accurate..don't blame Paul if you don't like the version |
| Future Manager 19.11.2005 15:39 |
Yes, Brian performed this version first on his Another World tour in '98, so it's not that new. I like it just as much as the fast version. I'll always prefer the studio version though, IMHO it never sounded as tight live. |
| Munchsack 20.11.2005 11:31 |
It's nice enough, but the original version is the best by MILES! And, if what rockyracoon says is true, then Freddie had better ideas for it than Brian, IMO. Surely, though, if this were true, it would be officially written by Brian & Freddie? |
| another one diets the bust 20.11.2005 11:44 |
If this turns out to be true, the song already had been 'written' and then Brian changed something as Freddie 'forced' him to. Also, this would still mean, that Brian was the one who 'rewrote' it, even if it had been Freddie's idea. |
| Sharron .G 20.11.2005 23:14 |
another one diets the bust wrote: If this turns out to be true, the song already had been 'written' and then Brian changed something as Freddie 'forced' him to. Also, this would still mean, that Brian was the one who 'rewrote' it, even if it had been Freddie's idea.But its not like Freddie couldn't have rewrote it....as the songs chords are elementary. Hammer to fall has to be a 90% Brian song...its not in Freddie's writing style at all. |
| Hitman 21.11.2005 05:40 |
IMO the heavy old version is anyway Brian's idea...but people with time try to see things in a different way, and slowing down the song can of course be an idea Brian had through the passing of time. Since Queen used to indicate the owner of the song in their albums, i don't see how Freddie could have insisted too much in make it rocking when it was a ballad.... so...i like the two versions, and it's good to have a slow one sung well by Paul! there's also an instrumentsl version made by Brian in 1998, some b-side of something i think...of the slow/fast Hammer to fall..someone will confirm that. ;) cheers |
| kohuept 21.11.2005 17:00 |
Brian also did this to Tie Your Mother Down and we know the story about that. Brian wrote it on an accoustic guitar and presented it to Freddie and he loved it - even the non-sensical makeshift chorus. Plus, the fact that the H2F riff is present in a '79ish guitar solo convinces me that the song is almost all Brian. I'm sure other band members had various amounts of input, though. As a sidenote, I have never heard anything about Freddie disliking Brian's ballads and wanting to change them, so, while it doesn't make any sense to me, it is not my place nor my intention to try and prove that story untrue. |
| FriedChicken 23.11.2005 19:21 |
An instrumental of Hammer to Fall Brian did in 1998? Hmm I really don't know |
| MercuryArts 26.11.2005 02:52 |
This song was good on the works album. It filled out side 2 nicely. The solo is brillant! On the works tour he played it same as on the record w/ the hammer-ons. After that on the magic tour & his 93 BTTL tour he omitted the first half of the solo including the hammer-ons. I haven't listen to my 98 Hamburg show in a while so I can't rememebr if he played that part. But I did like the slow version much better. Now on this 05 tour he cuts out that part of the solo again & I can't understand why. That screaming guitar opening the solo & then the hammer-ons is the best part by far of that solo. I just don't understand why he doesn't play it. Without that part it just doesn't do it for me at all. It's almost like, "This is to hard. I won't play it!" I'd rather have a total slow version w/out that solo. |
| Zak Royen 27.11.2005 17:25 |
apparently Brian's idea is that by slowing down the song, people will pay more attention to the lyrics. at least that's what he said on his soapbox about the songwriters' hall of fame version of WWRY. |
| Munchsack 29.11.2005 08:25 |
Also, if Freddie changed it, why did Brian play it as a heavy song on Live At The Brixton Academy? |