| Togg 18.09.2006 08:21 |
Can anyone remember an article detailing Brian's recording technique, I am particularly interested in what microphones have been used to capture his sound and placement etc. Not sure if I've ever seen an article that talks about this, I know he often used an SM57 on the Deacy amp but what about the AC30's? any ideas |
| FriedChicken 18.09.2006 09:58 |
I don't know if he always used the same mics. All I know is which microphones were used on Bohemian Rhapsody and most of A Night at the Opera Which are Neumann U67's and U87's on the tom-toms and overhead and D12 (AKG) on the Bassdrum The bass was Direct Injected and when the cabinet was recorded they used a Neumann U67 or a Electro Voice 666. Freddie's piano was picked up with a pair of U67's and also set up a Shure microphone at the piano to pick up his guide vocals. For the guitar they used different microphones for different parts and sounds. They would set up lots of microphones and pick one, or blend a few to make a specific sound. Also they put microphones everywhere. (at the back of the amp, under carpet, on the window, down metal, in concrete tubes etc.) |
| john bodega 19.09.2006 07:11 |
I strongly suspect there was a mic in Freddie's pants as well. |
| Togg 19.09.2006 07:33 |
Thank you Mr Chicken that was very interesting, and you to Zep your comments are always helpful ;-) |
| Fireplace 19.09.2006 08:23 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: Freddie's piano was picked up with a pair of U67's and also set up a Shure microphone at the piano to pick up his guide vocals.Meuh? Wouldn't that mean the guide vocals ended up on the final recordings, as they were bound to be picked up by the U67's? |
| Togg 19.09.2006 09:02 |
Yes that did happen sometimes, however, more often than not he simply did it twice, once with a guide vocal, then again just piano listening to the previous track in headphones. |
| FriedChicken 19.09.2006 11:40 |
Freddie would never sing the entire song during the recording of the backing track. Just a word or 2 in the beginning of the sentence. So he and the band knew where they were in the song. But yeah, the guide vocals did leak into the Neumanns occasionally. But because it is so soft it's not a problem when you are going to record the rest |
| FriedChicken 19.09.2006 11:42 |
And mastertape of Bohemian Rhapsody has 2 lead vocal tracks. And from both takes the voice was compiled into the vocaltrack which ended up on the record. |
| Fireplace 19.09.2006 15:34 |
Thanks for the heads up, gents. I'm still used to tip-toeing around a studio whenever the red light is on or there's a mike in sight. But if Freddie didn't, then who am I to disagree? |
| FriedChicken 19.09.2006 20:21 |
Uh what do you mean? |
| Fireplace 20.09.2006 03:03 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: Uh what do you mean?That I'm surprised everyone wasn't dead silent when Freddie's piano was recorded. Is it that difficult to understand? |
| Togg 20.09.2006 03:56 |
I think your misunderstanding this. In the studio Freddie would be in the main studio and everyone else in the control room (most of the time) on occasions they recorded live effectively, but most of the time on a piano based track he would go in play the piano with some form of guide vocal, which was either re-done later or simply got lost in the final mix as it was very low. One way of doing this is to play the song through live, then re-record over the top starting with usually drums and bass, this is common practice in studios and the best way to make sure you are in time and the track has a live feel. But it doesn't mean everyone can be in there with you chatting, you still have to have separation between instruments to get the best sound. |
| Adam Baboolal 20.09.2006 05:05 |
In the recent ANATO docu, Roy said that the piano was in one section of the room and the drums were behind a separated part of the same room. Also, the piano had a carpet thrown over the top to further help separation from the drums. And they even demonstrated that you can still hear the drums over the piano mics, very slightly. And usually with Queen, this live track would be THE track used. No re-recording here! This was further demonstrated by Brian when the piano was solo'd and you heard Freddie's minor mistakes. Warts n all. Adam. |
| FriedChicken 20.09.2006 05:47 |
Adam is right. They kept the live take and only stopped recording to do a new take when there were big mistakes. In some songs you can hear minor mistakes in the backing track. For example the piano and the drums in Borhap. But they didn't re-record bits of backing track. Because then the whole idea of having a band play live would be distroyed. They do did sometimes drum overdubs when this was nessecary for the sound |
| Togg 20.09.2006 06:00 |
Sure the early stuff was certainly done that way I agree, the documentary on Bo Rap was most interesting, however, I am given to understand that later on they did record in many different ways, sometimes only one or two of them was present at a time, in fact some of the later recordings do feel more 'studio' if you like, they later returned to more of a group feel. And went back to playing the songs together. With the obvious exception of their final album which by all accounts was peiced together a seperate times, first Roger and John and later Brian. I find it very interesting to listen back a try to work out which song has been done in which way, for example large parts of Hot Space, The Game?, The Works, and maybe even Magic have been done in a very different way to the early albums, However by the time Innuendo was being done I think whenever possible they were all there for the backing tracks at least. Just my supposition but I think you'll agree that those albums don't hav the same 'band' feel to say ANOTO etc. |
| Adam Baboolal 20.09.2006 07:49 |
Actually Togg, on the MIH material, there were times when they recorded a live backing track. Mother Love being the main example I remember from Dave Richards. Adam. |
| Togg 20.09.2006 08:08 |
Look, i'm not saying the whole of any album was done one way or the other, i am simply stating that they used multiple approaches to recording a track on many if not most of the albums. Some of the tracks on MIH were originally done live, then later scraped completely or they did indeed use the backing track, most of it as we know was recorded separately, the bulk of it by Brian much later on, and sure some of it is still the original live takes from long distant sessions. My point here is there are dozens of tracks recorded throughout their career in ways other than all playing live. |
| FriedChicken 20.09.2006 11:39 |
Yeah thats right. But that certainly wasn't the case before drum machines were used. Except on some stuff where they used looping. For example the drums in Dragon Attack and Coming Soon where looped. But in the 80's a lot of stuff was recorded on top of drum machines and bass synthesizers (which where probably recorded as a demo rather than a real part of the music) and then a lot of stuff was reecorded on top of it (drums, piano, bass etc) |
| Togg 20.09.2006 12:02 |
Do you know if the drums were looped on Another one bites? When you say "it wasn't the case before drum machines were used" Take a track like 'Fun it' now I doubt that was done live, but I guess it could have been. |
| Fireplace 20.09.2006 12:50 |
Togg wrote: Do you know if the drums were looped on Another one bites? When you say "it wasn't the case before drum machines were used" Take a track like 'Fun it' now I doubt that was done live, but I guess it could have been.I've heard Roger say on several occasions that the very tight beat on ABTD was really hard to reproduce in a live environment. That either means the studio part was a one off, or he was using a drum machine, although I seriously doubt drum machines sounded that natural in 1980. |
| Adam Baboolal 20.09.2006 12:55 |
I'm sure I heard Roger say AOBTD was a loop of his playing. Anyone care to confirm that? Adam. |
| FriedChicken 20.09.2006 13:08 |
I think Bites the Dust is looped. I don't have the track here so I can't check. As for Fun It. I think it's live with some electronic drums overdubbed. |
| Sebastian 20.09.2006 18:25 |
Before Hot Space backing tracks usually consisted of guitar, bass and drums or piano, bass and drums. Some exceptions would be Best Friend, Sheer Heart Attack and others. From Hot Space onwards it was mostly the creator of the song making a demo and then they all (or some) replaced the parts. AOBTD is indeed a loop, Brian commented it in 1993 when he spoke about Rock You, Killer Queen, Bo Rhap and AOBTD. Several other tracks from Game/HS are loops. |
| Togg 21.09.2006 03:51 |
I can remember at the time Roger admitting there were loops used but he would always stop short of admitting which tracks, not that it was difficult to guess. I listened back last night to the Bo Rap doc, it really was impressive how they got such a great sounding backing track on the multitrack without over processing it. The drums in particular sounded so close to the final version. Brian comments on how many room mics they used for them, it would be wonderful to see a diagram of where they were placed. I also understand that they recorded drum for ANOTO in several studios, Rockfield being the main one I believe, which begs the question did they re-do parts of the backing tracks in other studios? I know that I have heard there where points in the recording when they were working in several studios at once, can that be correct? |
| FriedChicken 21.09.2006 04:51 |
The recording began at Rockfield Studio 1 near Monmouth on August 24, 1975. After a three week rehearsal period in Herefordshire. During the making of the track, however, a further four studios -- SARM (East), Scorpion, Wessex and Roundhouse were used. They recorded the backing track in three sections at Kingsley Ward's Rockfield Studios. So they didn't record the whole song all the way through. They did it in three seperate bits. They left a 30 second gap (for the opera bit Freddie wanted) on the reel for later use (They didn't even know for sure if it was ever going to be used) The the end rock section was recorded as a separate song. Later they transfered to Scorpion Studios in London and SARM for work on the guitar overdubs and vocals. Because of all the vocals the end part was difficult. They recorded the basic backing track of drums, bass, piano and guitar. Then they did the backing vocals. Normally they recorded the lead vocals first (since it dictates the phrasing of the backing vocals) but they didn't do it like that with this song |
| The Fairy King 21.09.2006 05:16 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: The recording began at Rockfield Studio 1 near Monmouth on August 24, 1975. After a three week rehearsal period in Herefordshire. During the making of the track, however, a further four studios -- SARM (East), Scorpion, Wessex and Roundhouse were used. They recorded the backing track in three sections at Kingsley Ward's Rockfield Studios. So they didn't record the whole song all the way through. They did it in three seperate bits. They left a 30 second gap (for the opera bit Freddie wanted) on the reel for later use (They didn't even know for sure if it was ever going to be used) The the end rock section was recorded as a separate song. Later they transfered to Scorpion Studios in London and SARM for work on the guitar overdubs and vocals. Because of all the vocals the end part was difficult. They recorded the basic backing track of drums, bass, piano and guitar. Then they did the backing vocals. Normally they recorded the lead vocals first (since it dictates the phrasing of the backing vocals) but they didn't do it like that with this songSource: Wikipedia. :P |
| Adam Baboolal 21.09.2006 05:21 |
Togg wrote: I listened back last night to the Bo Rap doc, it really was impressive how they got such a great sounding backing track on the multitrack without over processing it. The drums in particular sounded so close to the final version.That's certainly due to something I now believe in. If you don't record it to sound a specific way in the beginning, you're setting yourself up for a lot of work and possibly not even being able to achieve the sound you might have wanted in the first place! There are two ways of thinking when recording, 1, getting -A- sound to tape and then shaping it to how you want and 2, getting -THE- sound you want recorded, leaving very little processing needing done afterwards. Adam. |
| Togg 21.09.2006 05:23 |
Which would help explain the drum sound changing for the end part, as Brian said they wanted a more open sound on the drums for the rock section so maybe another studio helped achieve that. |
| FriedChicken 21.09.2006 05:35 |
<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote:No funny guy, I just typed it myself. The source is Roy THomas BakerFriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: The recording began at Rockfield Studio 1 near Monmouth on August 24, 1975. After a three week rehearsal period in Herefordshire. During the making of the track, however, a further four studios -- SARM (East), Scorpion, Wessex and Roundhouse were used. They recorded the backing track in three sections at Kingsley Ward's Rockfield Studios. So they didn't record the whole song all the way through. They did it in three seperate bits. They left a 30 second gap (for the opera bit Freddie wanted) on the reel for later use (They didn't even know for sure if it was ever going to be used) The the end rock section was recorded as a separate song. Later they transfered to Scorpion Studios in London and SARM for work on the guitar overdubs and vocals. Because of all the vocals the end part was difficult. They recorded the basic backing track of drums, bass, piano and guitar. Then they did the backing vocals. Normally they recorded the lead vocals first (since it dictates the phrasing of the backing vocals) but they didn't do it like that with this songSource: Wikipedia. :P |
| Togg 21.09.2006 05:39 |
Adam Baboolal wrote:The first time I worked in a professional recording studio was 1984 in those days you had no pitch correction and what you put on tape was what you got back, I was too naive to understand that I was not going to get that killer sound in the post production, (the eighties were very much based around electronic sounds)so when it came time to do that I was somewhat disappointed, the next time I got a much better result first time. Ever since then I have tried whenever possible to do as much without little boxes.Togg wrote: I listened back last night to the Bo Rap doc, it really was impressive how they got such a great sounding backing track on the multitrack without over processing it. The drums in particular sounded so close to the final version.That's certainly due to something I now believe in. If you don't record it to sound a specific way in the beginning, you're setting yourself up for a lot of work and possibly not even being able to achieve the sound you might have wanted in the first place! There are two ways of thinking when recording, 1, getting -A- sound to tape and then shaping it to how you want and 2, getting -THE- sound you want recorded, leaving very little processing needing done afterwards. Adam. |
| The Fairy King 21.09.2006 05:57 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote:It's almost literally copied off wikipedia.<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote:No funny guy, I just typed it myself. The source is Roy THomas BakerFriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: The recording began at Rockfield Studio 1 near Monmouth on August 24, 1975. After a three week rehearsal period in Herefordshire. During the making of the track, however, a further four studios -- SARM (East), Scorpion, Wessex and Roundhouse were used. They recorded the backing track in three sections at Kingsley Ward's Rockfield Studios. So they didn't record the whole song all the way through. They did it in three seperate bits. They left a 30 second gap (for the opera bit Freddie wanted) on the reel for later use (They didn't even know for sure if it was ever going to be used) The the end rock section was recorded as a separate song. Later they transfered to Scorpion Studios in London and SARM for work on the guitar overdubs and vocals. Because of all the vocals the end part was difficult. They recorded the basic backing track of drums, bass, piano and guitar. Then they did the backing vocals. Normally they recorded the lead vocals first (since it dictates the phrasing of the backing vocals) but they didn't do it like that with this songSource: Wikipedia. :P link You can fool them, but you can't fool me. :P |
| FriedChicken 21.09.2006 06:01 |
No it's not, I just typed it myself. And if it's on wikipedia now it means someone just put it up on there. But if you don't believe me I really don't care |
| FriedChicken 21.09.2006 06:04 |
I got it from a Sound on Sound magazine btw. It had a great interview with Roy Thomas Baker. They also did an article on the mixing of Borhap in surround. And I believe they also did an interview with David Richards back in the day when they just released The Miracle |
| The Fairy King 21.09.2006 06:04 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: No it's not, I just typed it myself. And if it's on wikipedia now it means someone just put it up on there. But if you don't believe me I really don't careDon't lie. The last change made to that section was on: 15:26, 16 September 2006 by Enoky. You posted it today, so who copied here? ;) |
| FriedChicken 21.09.2006 06:07 |
Maybe we got it from the same interview smartass. But maybe you could make yourself usefull and instead of ruining this topic (which is in my opinion the first interesting topic in like 2 years) post some information which isn't posted here yet |
| Togg 21.09.2006 06:27 |
Thanks for reminding me about the sound on sound interview, just checked it out and it makes great reading, and BTW clearly where your information came from! One aspect I had forgotten was that the tape passed through the machine so many times it created a distortion of Roger's kit which is a sound people (me included) have tried to copy for years! I guess the kit was the original Ludwig natural finish one, one of the best sounding drum kits ever put to tape, a great pity that sound got lost in the mists of time... |
| Adam Baboolal 21.09.2006 06:50 |
Here is the article Fried refers to: link Jeez, as if Wikipedia is the be-all and end-all of information. The information starts somewhere else first... remember that FK. Adam. |
| FriedChicken 21.09.2006 07:24 |
Thanks Adam :) |
| zaiga 21.09.2006 07:51 |
Very interesting interview! Thanks for posting the link Adam. |
| Adam Baboolal 21.09.2006 08:01 |
Glad to help. Here's the surround NATO article: link Adam. |
| Sebastian 21.09.2006 08:35 |
Niek, did you really type it? If so, what a waste of time ... ever heard of copy n' paste? As for the actual question, keep in mind that sometimes they depended on whatever was available in the studio. Roy's comments focus on the "main" ones, but of course it's nearly impossible to know exact specifications. And by the way, there are no drum mistakes in Bo Rhap, although there's a timpani coming half a second late than it was supposed to. |
| The Fairy King 21.09.2006 09:36 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Here is the article Fried refers to: link Jeez, as if Wikipedia is the be-all and end-all of information. The information starts somewhere else first... remember that FK. Adam.That wasn't my point, he arrogantly posed as it was his own writing and claimed HIS piece was copied by a WP user. That ticked me off a bit and i'm not saying WP is the be-all and end-all of information Adam. |
| Togg 21.09.2006 09:49 |
No he didn't, he said someone probably copied it, if you look it's clear where it came from as he stated, you were the one trying to be clever |
| The Fairy King 21.09.2006 10:16 |
Togg wrote: No he didn't, he said someone probably copied it, if you look it's clear where it came from as he stated, you were the one trying to be cleverNot trying, i just am. Accept it, or are u mad at me cuz i didn't laugh at your lame joke in the other thread? ;) |
| Fireplace 21.09.2006 10:32 |
C'mon guys, drop it. I was rather enjoying the musical part of the discussion! I have always wondered where Queen got their studio expertise from, as judging from their biographies their pre-Queen history was nothing special, no fame, no money. Do you suppose they had it all planned out in their heads, or was it their producer/engineer's influence? |
| Adam Baboolal 21.09.2006 10:48 |
While some members obviously had some experience in recording, it's very probable that they learned their craft in recording via the producer or engineer. And after a few albums, took flight on their own, mainly. Peace, Adam. |
| Sebastian 21.09.2006 10:52 |
None of them were studio experts in the beginning, that's why they relied on Mike Stone for most of it. Even for Made In Heaven they were assisted by David Richards. The band's expertise consisted mostly of writing superb songs and singing/playing them brilliantly. The rest was left to the studio crew although they of course had some knowledge and knew exactly what they wanted. |
| The Fairy King 21.09.2006 10:57 |
They just knew what they could do in the studio and what was possible, but they weren't experts in the studio. And i'm sure they didn't know everything when they were recording ADATR and NOTW. I'm very curious why they asked Roy back for Jazz and worked with Mack later on. Did they get negative feedback for these albums? Or was it too hard for them to be in charge of the whole production thing. Because they never did their own production anymore after that. Just co-production.... |
| Sebastian 21.09.2006 11:28 |
They needed a producer from Jazz onwards because the actual genius behind the mixing was Mike Stone (Queen I - News Of The World). Note that Races's production is extraordinary, and it's without Roy, but not without Mike. Same for News. Another aspect was that the producer worked as referee, and since they decided to followed trends in 1979, they needed somebody expert in electronics. Roger in particular relied on Mack and David Richards to assist him in all aspects of his songs, from actual songwriting up to synth parts and ornaments. Of course Roy was important, and an excellent producer as well. His greatest strength was possibly the way he detected mistakes so accurately. |
| Togg 21.09.2006 11:36 |
I think both Freddie and Brian knew in their heads what they wanted to achieve, but I don't think they had the ability to do that without producers and engineers helping, I suspect even today they will be requiring the help of others to do some of it, after all you never stop learning with something like this, there's always something you can try that you never have before. But I am sure they will now have certain ways in which they like to work, I remember Brian rather pointedly commenting after Another World that it was nice to do the drums the way he liked them! whatever that meant? |
| Togg 21.09.2006 11:44 |
Sebastian wrote: They needed a producer from Jazz onwards because the actual genius behind the mixing was Mike Stone (Queen I - News Of The World). Note that Races's production is extraordinary, and it's without Roy, but not without Mike. Same for News. Another aspect was that the producer worked as referee, and since they decided to followed trends in 1979, they needed somebody expert in electronics. Roger in particular relied on Mack and David Richards to assist him in all aspects of his songs, from actual songwriting up to synth parts and ornaments. Of course Roy was important, and an excellent producer as well. His greatest strength was possibly the way he detected mistakes so accurately.News of the World was the turning point for me, I never felt they had the production values on that album that they had got on earlier ones, not until Innuendo did they return to that level of perfection IMO. |
| john bodega 21.09.2006 11:52 |
I'd say on the whole yeah, Innuendo was a jump back up in sound - but I've never liked the drum sound. Especially not on "The Hitman".. sounds dodgy as hell. |
| Togg 21.09.2006 12:13 |
I've found it comes and goes, IMO The Show Must Go On is every bit as good as anything Roger has recorded before, but I agree it's never been as nailed throughout the albums as it was in the first 5 or so. |
| Fireplace 21.09.2006 13:43 |
Togg wrote:Agreed, but IIRC that was by choice, not by accident. I remember something about wanting to keep up with the energy of punk rock. Of course they gloriously succeeded with "All Dead, All Dead".....:-)Sebastian wrote: They needed a producer from Jazz onwards because the actual genius behind the mixing was Mike Stone (Queen I - News Of The World). Note that Races's production is extraordinary, and it's without Roy, but not without Mike. Same for News. Another aspect was that the producer worked as referee, and since they decided to followed trends in 1979, they needed somebody expert in electronics. Roger in particular relied on Mack and David Richards to assist him in all aspects of his songs, from actual songwriting up to synth parts and ornaments. Of course Roy was important, and an excellent producer as well. His greatest strength was possibly the way he detected mistakes so accurately.News of the World was the turning point for me, I never felt they had the production values on that album that they had got on earlier ones, not until Innuendo did they return to that level of perfection IMO. |
| Sebastian 21.09.2006 14:22 |
> I think both Freddie and Brian knew in their heads what they wanted to achieve So did Roger and John. > but I don't think they had the ability to do that without producers and engineers helping Exactly. It's like a film-maker doing all the general photography, the acting, the post-production, the score, etc. Some people may be more versatile and do three or four things (e.g. producing, directing, starring, composing), but at one point or another you've got to rely on somebody else. Mike Stone was the perfect man to translate the lads' ideas into tape. > But I am sure they will now have certain ways in which they like to work, I remember Brian rather pointedly commenting after Another World that it was nice to do the drums the way he liked them! whatever that meant? Something important here is that another person may have a more objective and less obsessive perspective, thus they can help. Freddie was a superb producer (check Man From Manhattan), yet his own music usually was co-produced by Roy, Mack or David. Same with the others. Producers use other producers just like psychologists see other psychologists, lawyers get defended by other lawyers, and so on. |
| Fireplace 21.09.2006 15:04 |
Sebastian wrote: > Something important here is that another person may have a more objective and less obsessive perspective, thus they can help. Freddie was a superb producer (check Man From Manhattan), yet his own music usually was co-produced by Roy, Mack or David. Same with the others. Producers use other producers just like psychologists see other psychologists, lawyers get defended by other lawyers, and so on.Absolutely. After being in a studio for 8 hours straight, I stop hearing flaws that are otherwise very obvious and my judgement becomes questionable. No matter how gifted you are, it's always good to have an experienced pair of ears beside you. |
| Adam Baboolal 21.09.2006 17:21 |
Fireplace wrote:Here, here. A second opinion is always a good thing.Sebastian wrote: > Something important here is that another person may have a more objective and less obsessive perspective, thus they can help. Freddie was a superb producer (check Man From Manhattan), yet his own music usually was co-produced by Roy, Mack or David. Same with the others. Producers use other producers just like psychologists see other psychologists, lawyers get defended by other lawyers, and so on.Absolutely. After being in a studio for 8 hours straight, I stop hearing flaws that are otherwise very obvious and my judgement becomes questionable. No matter how gifted you are, it's always good to have an experienced pair of ears beside you. Adam. |
| FriedChicken 21.09.2006 19:29 |
Sebastian wrote: Niek, did you really type it? If so, what a waste of time ... ever heard of copy n' paste? As for the actual question, keep in mind that sometimes they depended on whatever was available in the studio. Roy's comments focus on the "main" ones, but of course it's nearly impossible to know exact specifications. And by the way, there are no drum mistakes in Bo Rhap, although there's a timpani coming half a second late than it was supposed to.yeah I did type it. (Except for most of the first part) Because there were some bits which weren't interesting for this topic. Yeah Ofcourse they were dependend on what was in the studio. But most good studios have Neumanns and Sm58/57s. About the timpani. Thats what I meant :) |
| Togg 22.09.2006 03:55 |
The sad part of some of this is that Mike Stone is no longer around to be able to tell of his time with them. I have never read an interview with him, has anyone seen one? During the eighties I was fortunate enough to be able to use the BBC studios in Glasgow for recording, taking over studio one and two sometimes for several days at a time. We recorded many hours of tape and during that time many different producers, engineers and sound buffs would come in, each adding there input to what was going on, it was fascinating just how much a small comment would effect the final production, in those days the BBC was filled with people who lived for their job and even on days off they would come in to help out and sit to discusses the latest technology. Sadly those days are gone due to internal politics, however it gave me a glimpse at what it might have been like to be working in those heady days of Bo Rap. The two albums that really intrigue me are News Of The World and Jazz, in production terms they are so different they seem what do you think accounts for this? what did they do in recording the albums to get such a radically different sound? yet with effectively the same people, instruments and amps. |
| The Fairy King 22.09.2006 05:14 |
No, but here's a nice interview with Gary Langan. link |
| Togg 22.09.2006 05:42 |
Interesting stuff, pity he didn't speak more talk about his early Queen days, but I guess he was pretty much the tea boy then. His comments on getting it right first time in the studio were also very revealing, something that people don't do so much of these days as they rely on Pro-Tools and the like. |
| Adam Baboolal 22.09.2006 06:10 |
It's so true about people and computers these days. I love my PC's for recording. But I would never do what the band I had in last year, did. We would record the song live and until they got it just right, they kept going, take after take. I actually favoured the sound of earlier takes, but they wanted the perfect take. The result? Not bad after their overdubs. But I wonder, at least, what it could've sounded like. But also, the technology is there to sit messing with autotuning the vocals, automatic replacement of drum hits, etc. Which they did on practically EVERY track. *tut tut* I don't do it myself, cause I don't like it. Not sure why, maybe I believe in not tampering with what's recorded. Anyway, I've heard Brian say in an interview about 1st takes encompassing a lot, while the ones that come after don't always improve much. Adam. |
| Togg 22.09.2006 06:39 |
Well I think Brian has said Queen used to often do 5-6 takes at the backing before moving on, but often it's the early ones that have a certain feel, mind you he would then spend days and days working on snippets of a solo so I guess you have to make a compromise sometimes if you want to get it right. And there is no doubt in my mind that Pro-Tools and the like can make you lazy in terms of playing ability. Adam our you working in a studio now? |
| Adam Baboolal 22.09.2006 07:08 |
Afraid not. I'm starting to look for a place now. Just wondering how to break into them. Any advice engineer-type folks?! Adam. |
| Togg 22.09.2006 08:07 |
Try the BBC, they will be the biggest employer in your area and nobody does training as well as they do. If you have time, write to studios and ask if you can come and help in evenings (in you are not working) weekends for free, they will probably be happy to have help and you will get to hear about jobs going. |
| Sebastian 22.09.2006 08:37 |
Regarding production during News and Jazz: News - They wanted a different sound, more truthful to their roots and simpler. So they did it that way. Jazz - No more Mike Stone, and that's the big turning point. Moreover they were using very different studios (and outside the UK for the first time). Too bad there aren't many interviews about this album, I really really love it. |
| The Fairy King 22.09.2006 08:52 |
Edit nvm. |
| Togg 22.09.2006 09:13 |
Sebastian wrote: Regarding production during News and Jazz: News - They wanted a different sound, more truthful to their roots and simpler. So they did it that way. Jazz - No more Mike Stone, and that's the big turning point. Moreover they were using very different studios (and outside the UK for the first time). Too bad there aren't many interviews about this album, I really really love it.I must say I'd love to know what they did to capture those sounds, Jazz for instance, the drums have a very unique feel, I think a lot more close mic techniques were used together with more processing than before the sounds seem less 'round' if you know what I mean, they still have the ring and depth in many cases but somehow that roundness is not there, I've often wondered about the inside sleeve, how much of that was staged and how much was them actually at work in the studio, did Roger really use both kits? |
| Boy Thomas Raker 22.09.2006 09:52 |
For NOTW, I read interviews with both Freddie and Brian (in Circus magazine?) where the interviewer commented on the relative sparseness of that album compared to its predecessors. Both of them commented that they'd done the layered, heavily overdubbed thing as much as they could, and they were trying a different approach. It's funny, I find NOTW to be Queen's last "British" album. To me, Jazz is a very European album which may be relected in their move to Mountain Studios, and the Game is very Americanized, with Hot Space being a mix of American funk and the sparseness of Euro dance. I think this musical sea change affected the production sounds of each album. |
| john bodega 23.09.2006 00:57 |
Love or hate the gradual changes, one can't say it wasn't interesting! |
| Togg 25.09.2006 06:28 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Love or hate the gradual changes, one can't say it wasn't interesting!That's what made them so different and worthy of attention in my book. I sincerely hope they document how they will go about recording the new album, it will be interesting to see what direction, but I will be more interested in how they create the new Queen+PR sound! |
| Wilki Amieva 25.09.2006 09:16 |
Very interesting thread. It is sooo true what you are telling about being too much time at the studio and getting tired and easily confused. I remember working with a friend in audio/video synchronization and after several hours spent in the studio I suddenly find her staring at me, mouth wide open but absolutely speechless. I asked her what the heck happened and she answered that she was hearing my speaking out-of-synch!!! Just imagine the quality of the work we were performing... Needless to say, we had to re-synchronize everything the next morning, after some sleep. |
| YourValentine 30.09.2006 21:43 |
btt |
| Togg 02.10.2006 04:04 |
I don't understand that btt YV? |
| Adam Baboolal 02.10.2006 05:15 |
maybe means back to top |
| FriedChicken 05.10.2006 04:27 |
It means that someone is sick of all those youngsters posting crap on this board, and that there should be more interesting topics at the top |
| Togg 05.10.2006 05:56 |
In that case lets kick this off again... The new album is obviously going to have a very different feel now Paul has joined, I expect all three will have pretty solid demos of songs they want to try out, but do we think they will alter the recording approach for this album? I would imagine Paul is used to playing almost live and coming out with an album in a few weeks as he is very much a good old rock no nonsense chap. But Brian on the other hand has been known to spend weeks on just one part of a solo, how do you think the two will work this time around? And finally... I know it's been asked before but if they are to play live that would require a bass player rather than either Roger or Brian filling that spot so does that mean the full Q+PR stage crew will be involved in this album from the start? OK I said finally but this time it is... choice of studio will be important to the final sound, do we think they will try to capture the old valve and tape feel or do straight to digital and pro-tools? Let the discussion begin (again) |
| ezee 05.10.2006 12:02 |
I dont post here that often, but this is an interesting thread. Ive been a recording engineer since the early eighties and a long time studier / admirer of the 'Queen Sound' Togg mentioned capturing the old valve and tape feel, or record to pro tools. Well if you have the budget for it, then its not uncommon to record basic tracks to Analog Tape (to capture the old valve and tape feel)... (actually its more about a sound than a feel) Anyways, record basics (drums, bass and rhythm guitar) to Tape and then transfer it to a Digital Medium of your choice. Be it Pro Tools, Nuendo or Radar (being the most popular ones) Once on Digital you have no danger of the audio quality deteriorating like it would after being played again and again on Analog Tape Machines. You can do all your edits and trickery in the digital domain faster than you could with tape. What ever they do im sure itll sound great because they are all World Class Musicians... If the songs are great then all you need with those guys is a good performance. Plug em in and press record! |
| ezee 05.10.2006 12:04 |
Togg wrote: Can anyone remember an article detailing Brian's recording technique, I am particularly interested in what microphones have been used to capture his sound and placement etc. Not sure if I've ever seen an article that talks about this, I know he often used an SM57 on the Deacy amp but what about the AC30's? any ideas Sennheiser MD421 |
| Togg 05.10.2006 12:21 |
ezee wrote: Togg wrote: Can anyone remember an article detailing Brian's recording technique, I am particularly interested in what microphones have been used to capture his sound and placement etc. Not sure if I've ever seen an article that talks about this, I know he often used an SM57 on the Deacy amp but what about the AC30's? any ideas Sennheiser MD421Interesting, hadn't thought about them, do you know that or was it an educated guess? I have seen some large diaphragm condenser mics on the AC30's in the One Vision video but 421's would be an interesting choice. |
| ezee 05.10.2006 12:41 |
hehe, geez i cant figure out how to quote your post Togg.. Anyway.. The 421 is a popular mic for guitar amps and toms... im also 99% certain that i read an Interview with either Brian May or a Queen engineer stating that the 421 was used on the AC30. An ambient mic (room mic) may have been a Neuman U47.. depending on the tone of the room. The 421 is a a bit darker and thicker than the SM57. Sometimes the sound is a blend of the two close mics or all three. |
| ezee 05.10.2006 12:49 |
Togg, im trying to recall the One Vision Video. Was that the one in the studio with Freddie Singing about 3 feet in front of Brian & his amps in a really small room. Roger playing the big Chrome Ludwig in the Iso room behind glass sliding doors? I think i remember AKG 414's ... Freddie was singing into one. |
| ezee 05.10.2006 12:55 |
Togg: The first time I worked in a professional recording studio was 1984 in those days you had no pitch correction Hehe oh YES there was. We used the Eventide H949 Harmoniser.. and you had to do it by ear, no auto-tune graphs and the like.. You had to do it word by word,.. note by note.. it was extreamly time consuming and you had to have a darn good ear to know if you were on target with the tuning or not. |
| Togg 06.10.2006 03:57 |
I remember them, god I'd forgotten about that. What a pain, I helped out on an outside broadcast for the BBC and we ending up using one on a guy playing the fiddle I think. jeez I remember it took half the night! Yes the One Vision video may show them but if you have the documentary on Greatest hits dvd they extend the documentary and show Brian working in the studio, look carefully as Freddie and Brian are talking, there is a silver condenser on the AC30's down by Brian's feet. can't tell the model you might be able to though. I remember seeing it a long time ago and thinking I must watch that again to work out what it was, but never getting round to it, maybe tonight I well check it out again. It's interesting, because Brian is in a small studio and there appears to be no other mics set up so it seems for One Vision at least there was no room added just digital reverb if any. I would also have expected him to mic the back of the amps as well, so maybe this one was just thrown up to get a basic sound before the final take, I was never sure how much of that doc was staged for the camera. |
| ezee 08.10.2006 11:59 |
Talking about the BBC, i remember running FOH (live sound) for a band that opened for "King" (hehe remember them?) One New years eve. It was to be broadcast and the BBC had a remote truck parked outside the venue. I went down to the truck after soundcheck to ask if everything was ok. Theres 5 guys sitting in the truck with a 40+ input SSL and the engineer sitting at the board reveals to me that the whole mix is on ONE fader.. jeez all that gear and crew and they are taking one feed from the house console! Talk about pressure when it came time for the show! Back to Brian... im sure you realise its all about his guitar, his technique and his amps.. you could kids kareoke mic in front of that vox and it'd still sound like Brian May! |
| tenchijin2 08.10.2006 18:24 |
Yes, it would sound like Brian, but it wouldn't sound like a Queen record. Much of the sound on a Queen record has to do with recording technique. In particular, there was a lot of mic'ing experimentation early on. You can hear CLEARLY that 'hollow' type sound on many classic records which comes from mic placement and blending an ambient mic with a close mic. That sound doesn't come from Brian's guitar, or fingers. Also, there's a lot about hiss reduction that has to be done. Brian's amps are NOISY! Here's a good link that has a bunch of info: link |
| The Real Wizard 09.10.2006 10:30 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: In the recent ANATO docu, Roy said that the piano was in one section of the room and the drums were behind a separated part of the same room. Also, the piano had a carpet thrown over the top to further help separation from the drums. And they even demonstrated that you can still hear the drums over the piano mics, very slightly.Which version of the ANATO documentary was this? I know there were two or three, and I can never get this straight! |
| ezee 09.10.2006 11:58 |
Talking about "leakage" listen to the intro of Sweet Lady. They obviously left the Doors open to the drum room cos you can hear the Bass rattling the snare drum. Thats what that fuzzy sound is as the bass plays the intro. |
| Togg 09.10.2006 12:23 |
tenchijin2 wrote: Yes, it would sound like Brian, but it wouldn't sound like a Queen record. Much of the sound on a Queen record has to do with recording technique. In particular, there was a lot of mic'ing experimentation early on. You can hear CLEARLY that 'hollow' type sound on many classic records which comes from mic placement and blending an ambient mic with a close mic. That sound doesn't come from Brian's guitar, or fingers. Also, there's a lot about hiss reduction that has to be done. Brian's amps are NOISY! Here's a good link that has a bunch of info: linkI have to say AC30's are about the most noisy amps ever made, I went to see Brian demo his rig once at a music fair and even he found it difficult to talk above the amps hiss, during periods when he was not playing, I don't remember his comment but it was along the lines of 'of course we get rid of all that in the studio' Listen to the amps at the beginging of ROTC and you can hear a huge buzz going on as Paul walks on stage. |
| The Real Wizard 09.10.2006 21:16 |
Togg wrote: I have to say AC30's are about the most noisy amps ever made, I went to see Brian demo his rig once at a music fair and even he found it difficult to talk above the amps hiss, during periods when he was not playing, I don't remember his comment but it was along the lines of 'of course we get rid of all that in the studio'Interesting observation. The bootlegs are full of Brian's amps buzzing. Manchester 75 rings a bell immediately. |
| Adam Baboolal 10.10.2006 05:29 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Oh... just back today. I'll try and find that out. Yes, there are three bloomin docu's to look at! But actually, it may be one of the newer ones.Adam Baboolal wrote: In the recent ANATO docu, Roy said that the piano was in one section of the room and the drums were behind a separated part of the same room. Also, the piano had a carpet thrown over the top to further help separation from the drums. And they even demonstrated that you can still hear the drums over the piano mics, very slightly.Which version of the ANATO documentary was this? I know there were two or three, and I can never get this straight! Like the turn this thread is taking. Great to see some interesting talk about the stuff they'd do to get the sounds, etc. And yes, the MD421 is a great mic for guitar amp recordings. Unfortunately, I don't have any - booo... Adam. |
| john bodega 10.10.2006 08:16 |
The documentary in question is Story of Bohemian Rhapsody - I remember it well, as I had to join Queenzone in order to download it :D Funny how, in the first half of their career, I don't think Queen (or, more specifically Brian) were big on reverb at all, when it came to guitars anyway. The guitar tracks weren't totally 'dry' as such; they did have a slight room sound to them. But that was usually it. Then you look at latter day tracks like Invisible Man, Don't Try So Hard or These Are The Days of Our Lives, which have a lot of added echo on 'em. I wonder what changed their minds? |
| tenchijin2 10.10.2006 08:53 |
ezee wrote: Talking about "leakage" listen to the intro of Sweet Lady. They obviously left the Doors open to the drum room cos you can hear the Bass rattling the snare drum. Thats what that fuzzy sound is as the bass plays the intro.According to the making of Bohemian Rhapsody program, there was no door to the drum room at the studio at the time! |
| tenchijin2 10.10.2006 08:55 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Funny how, in the first half of their career, I don't think Queen (or, more specifically Brian) were big on reverb at all, when it came to guitars anyway. The guitar tracks weren't totally 'dry' as such; they did have a slight room sound to them. But that was usually it. Then you look at latter day tracks like Invisible Man, Don't Try So Hard or These Are The Days of Our Lives, which have a lot of added echo on 'em. I wonder what changed their minds?Mainly that has to do with music trends of the time. The music in the '70s was often very dry, as a matter of style. The '80s saw a resurgence in big, roomy reverbs. That was the trend of the day. |
| ezee 10.10.2006 11:38 |
tenchijin2: i believe you are correct on both posts there. You jogged my memory, i recall hearing the same info bout the doors... or lack of! |
| Togg 11.10.2006 11:27 |
Rumour has it Roger locked himself into a cupboard and wouldn't come out until they agreed to have I'm In Love With My Car as the B side to Bo Rap, maybe that's why the took the doors off his part of the studio...;-) On a more serious note, Brian commented in one of the DVD's recently that they were originally told they could get the big drum sound they wanted by adding artificial reverb to it later, however they soon found out that was not the case. Maybe the doors were removed to help with capturing the natural room feel on the kit. |
| Adam Baboolal 11.10.2006 12:22 |
Togg wrote: On a more serious note, Brian commented in one of the DVD's recently that they were originally told they could get the big drum sound they wanted by adding artificial reverb to it later, however they soon found out that was not the case.Yeah, that's the first album where they were told that. Adam. |
| The Real Wizard 11.10.2006 14:55 |
Zebonka12 wrote: The documentary in question is Story of Bohemian Rhapsody - I remember it well, as I had to join Queenzone in order to download it :DHehe... cool, thanks for the info. Just a friendly note: be careful not to mix up the words "reverb" and "echo". Those are a very different things! Reverb is a resonance, whereas echo is something repeating itself. |
| ezee 12.10.2006 11:15 |
If only the Late dearly departed Mike Stone were around :( Maybe we could all have had some answers into the Studio mystery that seems to surround Queen. To my ears and research on people who knew some assistants that were around the making of those albums in the earlier years.. there was nothing particulary special about the microphones or equipment used in those days. Pretty much the same gear that every other band was using to make albums at the time. There was however an incredibly talented bunch of guys working very meticulusly and paying close attention to detail over every single note and beat that was recorded. Over the top production, double, triple, quadruple and beyond!!!.... tracking of Guitar parts and harmonies. They had pretty limited resorces as far as equipment back then.. much like THe Beatles.. so there was alot of "improvisation" Concrete pipes with mics stuck in them for guitar sounds.. Headphones being mic'd up to get a particular sound (Lazing on a Sunday..) Air conditioning units used to make a wind sound.. then run through a phaser or flanger (Prophets song). There is a great book out there now called " Here there and everywhere" By Geoff Emerick. Its not about Queen... but its about Engineer Geoff Emericks recording experiences with The Beatles. Its a great read and all of the techniques and MANY of the mics they used still apply to Queen. For those of you out there who dont know much about the studio or have never recorded on anything other than yer computers... it may make things a little clearer. Sorry for the long post, i know im ranting.. its frustrating cos there never seems to be any difinitive answers on the Subjet of Queen in the Studio. e. |
| john bodega 12.10.2006 14:21 |
"Just a friendly note: be careful not to mix up the words "reverb" and "echo". Those are a very different things! Reverb is a resonance, whereas echo is something repeating itself." Indeed! Though in my head, I seem to recall Brian using slight track echos in lieu of reverb quite often. Or if there is reverb, it's slight. Hmm. Time for me to start listening to Queen again! (I've been on a five month Who bender...) |