| Lester Burnham 11.03.2007 13:21 |
Without getting in a huge debate over the name and whether Paul should be playing with Brian and Roger (please, I beg of you all, let's not go down that road again, we'll get nowhere), it seems that Brian has updated us all on the recording sessions thus far:
On his soapbox, Brian wrote: OK - I know I don't write much about our music recording work in the studio. But, it's deliberate really ... I feel a reluctance to take advantage of this Soapbox platform to expose too much of what must essentially be a private process, needing room to breathe and develop organically. I'm happy to say that the process has worked, in a very fine way. This (second) period of 3 weeks of QUEEN/RODGERS recording sessions is over now, so, for a while at least, I can get my life back a bit ! It's actually tough, being so closely focussed on what has to be a very emotional workplace, and during these times, life outside virtually stops. But we have some good music on the boil ... about 8 songs so far - with some great moments, I think ....very grown-up and organic in feel. It is ALL played ... together as a band; no samples, drum machines, or protools fabrications. You can hear the interactions of us as musicians in a room - very rare these days ! We are very excited, but conscious that there is a little further to go before we are ready to launch the new material on the world. The greatest thing for me has been to see us evolving into a proper band - like the old days. Every day we have played together in the studio, trying out ideas, and most of the tracks we are working on are the result of playing a song for the first or second time only ... the freshness and spirit of adventure all being there. And we have not even been 'careful' ! By this I mean that mostly we have treated our playing together not as a baseline, but as the front line of what the performance will turn out to be. In the past we have often put down a pure backing track - say, Drums, bass and rhythm guitar, and added the 'top lines' - lead vocals and lead guitars - afterwards. In what we are doing now, Paul sings it for real, on the take, as well as playing piano or guitar, or bass, and I play the lead guitar for real, and Roger is interacting in the moment too, so this very organic, live moment is what you will hear on the final mix. We are able to add some craftsmanship to this in the ways that we have learned over the years, especially as regards those trademark harmony vocals and guitar 'orchestras' - plus play with the blend of sounds ... and gradually the new music is taking shape. To my ears it sounds as if it is full of our joint heritage, but different from anything either Paul or Queen have done in the past. This session produced some welcome heavy crunch, as well as some more contemplative textured moments ... These things, it seems, cannot really be planned ... they happen, if you are lucky, when you put the work and spirit in, when you keep an awareness of the balance between instinctive and analytic, and when the Muses smile on you. A break, now - time for getting perspectives, regaining freshness, and having new thoughts. Cheers BriAnd as to who's playing bass: Again, the curly one wrote thusly: Well, I don't really feel it's right to get into too many details at this point, but, as things stand, in the recent Queen/Rodgers sessions, all three of us have played some bass ! (me most of all) Whether the tracks will end up that way, I'm not sure - we may invite someone in at some point, but for the purposes of getting our heads together, and evolving not only songs, but ways of creating, it has worked out well just having the three of us, so far. |
| Sebastian 11.03.2007 14:02 |
Lester, would you care to concede me an interview for my website? It'd be nice to ask you some questions about the book (although I haven't got it yet). |
| Nathan 11.03.2007 14:32 |
This is very exciting news indeed. Hopefully it won't be too long before the album is released. |
| Lester Burnham 11.03.2007 14:45 |
Sebastian wrote: Lester, would you care to concede me an interview for my website? It'd be nice to ask you some questions about the book (although I haven't got it yet).Sure! I'll send you an email. |
| YourValentine 11.03.2007 16:31 |
I wonder what Brian means with "agenda to paint a certain picture" referring to the Torpedo Twins. |
| Sebastian 11.03.2007 16:48 |
Now that Fred's dead, Brian blames outsiders of "devising" an image of Mercury as the band's leader (e.g. in that documentary). It's quite debatable if he's merely trying to be clear about the democracy Queen represented, or if he's merely a grumpy bitter old bloke starving for attention and praise. We've all got our opinions about that, but something's dead cert: Brian has appeared on more newspapers and TV programmes from 25th November 1991 to mid-1992 and from 2002 (more or less) to date, than he did during all the '69-'91 era. That speaks for itself. IMHO! |
| olly1988 11.03.2007 17:16 |
this worries me! I dont like the idea of Queen recording everything the first or second time after coming up with it. Getting my doubts now. Paul isn't the best studio singer in the world but brian worries me a bit with what he's written in his soapbox! I'll just av to see what it sounds like. but does anybody agree with me? is this really Queen? link best new melodic band in the world! |
| Adam Baboolal 11.03.2007 17:18 |
You just love to jump to conclusions and assume the worst of Brian, don't you, Seb? I say, leave that poisoned/negative opinion out of this one. It really grates having to read that in this thread about something really positive. Now, as a semi-docu maker, I believe that Brian was getting at the job in-hand that the torpedo twins take with these things, i.e. They show specific moments and situations and bend footage to present a certain view of things. They don't show the real process that the band goes through and you won't get a true representation of what's happening in the studio. Now, that said, I love that footage. But also from my filming experiences, it's hard to -not- get in the way of what's happening in a situation like that. It's a confined place and you're visible to them at all times. So, I think that this is probably what he meant. Not the twisted view that Seb presented. Dream on Seb. Adam. |
| Sebastian 11.03.2007 17:42 |
I've got to admit that your point of view is quite interesting as well. That's why I hate most documentries ... like that thing BBC did on 'Bo Rhap' nearly three years ago. Nice bits + poor bits. |
| Nathan 11.03.2007 17:56 |
olly1988 wrote: this worries me! is this really Queen?Good question. It's not Queen in the traditional sense, but Q+PR, a band we haven't yet heard from in the studio. We'll have to wait and see if those things Brian mentioned are the right decision. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 11.03.2007 19:02 |
Their agenda? Probably to manufacture controversy. It wouldn't make for interesting viewing if Queen agreed on every creative decision. I'd hazard a guess that Brian was referring to the fact that the TT were to look for moments of tension and focus in on that. Or to make Freddie look like the leader ;) |
| Mr Faron Hyte 11.03.2007 20:03 |
Sebastian wrote: We've all got our opinions about that, but something's dead cert: Brian has appeared on more newspapers and TV programmes from 25th November 1991 to mid-1992 and from 2002 (more or less) to date, than he did during all the '69-'91 era. That speaks for itself. IMHO!It means the press ceased to focus on the most talkative/colorful and most dead member of the band, and focused on the second most talkative/colorful member of the band, who also happened to have the good fortune of not to being dead. Did somebody mention agendas? |
| KingMercury 11.03.2007 20:17 |
Sebastian wrote: Now that Fred's dead, Brian blames outsiders of "devising" an image of Mercury as the band's leader (e.g. in that documentary). It's quite debatable if he's merely trying to be clear about the democracy Queen represented, or if he's merely a grumpy bitter old bloke starving for attention and praise. We've all got our opinions about that, but something's dead cert: Brian has appeared on more newspapers and TV programmes from 25th November 1991 to mid-1992 and from 2002 (more or less) to date, than he did during all the '69-'91 era. That speaks for itself. IMHO!i'm not agree queen was a band that didnt like cameras so much when they appeared on tv, most of times were freddie brian and roger who talked when freddie died, brian roger and john had the duty to keep queen spirit alive, and they wanted people to see that queen was still alive freddie was gone, and that was very painfull but queen is still alive brian appeared on tv many times since freddie's death, but it is part of his job dont forget that musicians, in a certain way, must be public persons, and TV is the way to be that kind of person i'm not agree with sebastian brian was trying to keep queen alive if he wanted, he could stop working he doesnt need money anymore i think he is still working cause music is his life and im agree with him, cameras changes so much people isnt natural and spontaneous with cameras around |
| john bodega 11.03.2007 21:29 |
Is it different for his generation?? I *love* having cameras in rehearsal rooms/ studios. It's fun!! Is this because I've grown up with Super 8/VHS/Digital 8 constantly in my face? |
| AlexRocks 11.03.2007 21:59 |
So after working on and off for a year and half they have come up with EIGHT songs? Oh wow. Roger Taylor must be in a different group. The one he was recording with were going to have enough material for TWO c.d.s...I hope that that will at least end up being the case though I only think ONE c.d. should be released for this release. I think the next release SHOULD be a two c.d. set though...just not this first release because now is not the time to cut into sales with a multi-disc set. They need to prove themselves first...and they will. |
| Lester Burnham 11.03.2007 22:12 |
I explained this on the QOL site Alex, but I'll do it again here. If you'll read a little more closely, Brian said "This (second) period of 3 weeks of QUEEN/RODGERS recording sessions is over now". Meaning they've only been working on it for six weeks, not eighteen months as you've somehow deduced. That's about three-quarters of a song per week. Not bad, I say. |
| AlexRocks 11.03.2007 22:22 |
Oh! O.k.! Sometimes I get psycho excited and blast through the reading without paying close enough attention! Whoo hoo! Sorry I have been waiting YEARS for this to happen and I just hope that they record WAY too much material...you know?! Lol! Thanks for taking me by the hand and explaining it! I was just too excited about it to take it all in! That's not so bad in terms of how much they've recorded in that time period. Still it seems they were working on things long before now. Also I could not log onto the QOL so forgive me! Oh man! I hope that there is some accoustic stuff and some piano stuff...and I don't think for this release it would be so bad to have some keyboard stuff to a minimum you know? I totally agree wit the organic sound thing all the way but I don't think that keyboards are totally irrelevant either. Of course May has made some phenomenal sounds on that Fireplace of his! |
| kenny8 12.03.2007 01:52 |
azzadude wrote: Actually after Freddies passing Brian wanted to get as far away as possible from Queen. He wanted that part of his life to be over.Cue the usual "He's entitled to change his mind" responses....don't worry though, what's being recorded will be nothing at all like Queen |
| kenny8 12.03.2007 02:00 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: It really grates having to read that in this thread about something really positive.Tough shit. It's called freedom of speech. Raising money for AIDS charities is "something really positive" This new "Queen" album is nothing more than a sad exercise in greed. And don't give me any of those "They don't need the money, have you seen their houses?" crap. If they wanted to do it just for the music and the fans, they could. But no, the "Queen" machine must continue despite being years beyond it's relevance. The band Queen died on November the 24th 1991. |
| pittrek 12.03.2007 03:04 |
Oh my god, all this crap ... again ? |
| Mr. Scully 12.03.2007 05:40 |
kenny8 wrote: This new "Queen" album is nothing more than a sad exercise in greed.Great! Finally somebody who has already heard it! I thought it was coming out in the autumn but I must have missed something when I see people judge it already... |
| john bodega 12.03.2007 07:02 |
"The band Queen died on November the 24th 1991." Sounds like you did too!! Besides... who says that some of the money from this won't go to charity? Unless Dr. May's bank statements are accidentally being sent to you, I don't you're in a position to claim categorically where his money is going. Live 'n' let live. |
| DavidRFuller 12.03.2007 08:09 |
I'd love to see a two CD set with some of Freddie's demos being finished up. Then it could seem more like a Queen CD. |
| Benn 12.03.2007 08:46 |
What I hope Brian, Roger and Paul get out of this is a fresh start. Personally, I'd like to hear them doing material that shows absolutely no regard for the compromises set by whichever record company they are hitched to. It's interesting that the recent Who album was a complete departure from ANYTHING Townshend or Daltrey had ever done before. Getting past the merits of continuing on the band's name etc etc, the fact is that they will prepare an album under the "Queen" name because that is what sells. BUT, there is so much then CAN do under that banner that hasn't been touched before and Paul is most definitely the catalyst for that. I don't want to hear Freddie's vocals on there at all. He's dead - get on with the present and future. There is new material and there are new ideas which are FAR more exciting than the compromise of adding a Mercury vocal to the album just to ensure a sales figure. |
| August R. 12.03.2007 09:18 |
Benn wrote: It's interesting that the recent Who album was a complete departure from ANYTHING Townshend or Daltrey had ever done before. Getting past the merits of continuing on the band's name etc etc, the fact is that they will prepare an album under the "Queen" name because that is what sells. BUT, there is so much then CAN do under that banner that hasn't been touched before and Paul is most definitely the catalyst for that. I don't want to hear Freddie's vocals on there at all. He's dead - get on with the present and future. There is new material and there are new ideas which are FAR more exciting than the compromise of adding a Mercury vocal to the album just to ensure a sales figure.Well said, Benn. I, too, think that the old Freddie demos should be left out from QPR album. They are a separate project all together. I find it quite strange that there are people who think that it's wrong for Brian & Roger to use Queen name now that they are working with Paul. Yet they have nothing against with Bri & Rog re-working some old unfinished songs. I think THAT really would be robbing Freddie's grave if they put a song or two with Freddie's vocals on the the QPR album. I just can't see them doing that. Brian seems to be very exited about this new band, and the way they are interacting and developing 'a thing of their own'. I'm really pleased to see them creating new material and trying out new things. If they only could come up with a new name as well, and then everyone could be happy... NOT :) |
| YourValentine 12.03.2007 10:25 |
We should give the album a chance, I certainly will listen to it with an open mind. I don't think anyone thinks it's a good idea to add some leftover Freddie vocals to the new project, that would be really odd. Even if many hardcore fans should not like the album it has good chances to be very successful imo because the broader public does not have a problem with the fact that an established band chooses another singer. And if we put all those name debates, "legacy", "Freddie cannot be replaced" stuff aside, we still have three of the best musicians of our time teaming up for this project and they certainly know what they are doing. I wish them well, I think Brian and Roger deserve the support of their fans - they really did all they could when Freddie was still alive - no touring for the last five years of Queen, giving Freddie the time for "Barcelona", recording with him as long as he wanted and lying to the public and even friends for years. Now it's their turn and I hope they do great. I know I will miss Freddie's voice but life goes on - I am not living in the past in my own life, either. |
| Daveboy35 12.03.2007 12:03 |
Yourvalentine point is right on and to quote a classic beatles song "speaking words of wisdom let it be". Listen guys the boys have had a new lease of life over the last 2 and a half years and they are excited and revelling in this BRAND new project and i wish them all the best with what they are doing. Having freddie on this album would not be good no no there's a place for freddie and that will be on another seperate project this is queen + paul rodgers and that's how it would stay. I just wonder how many times people have said when they've listened to a solo roger album or brian may album and thought " wouldn't it be good if brian may played on this or roger's vocals would be great on that" i know i have quite a few times. |
| gnomo 12.03.2007 13:19 |
kenny8 wrote: If they wanted to do it just for the music and the fans, they could.Sorry to have to break such bad news on you, but they aren't doing it for the fans (or for the musics per se) - they're doing it for THEMSELVES, because that's what they enjoy doing, and they couldn't care less whether others like it or not. |
| Dan C. 12.03.2007 13:39 |
Lester Burnham wrote: Without getting in a huge debate over the name and whether Paul should be playing with Brian and Roger (please, I beg of you all, let's not go down that road again, we'll get nowhere), it seems that Brian has updated us all on the recording sessions thus far.Did you guys see the part about NOT turning this thread into a "this isn't Queen" thread? Aren't there enough of them already? |
| Lester Burnham 12.03.2007 14:26 |
Some people just can't read, Dan :-\ |
| Dan C. 12.03.2007 14:45 |
Hey, you wrote a book! |
| Lester Burnham 12.03.2007 15:10 |
I did? Where'd you read that? |
| PieterMC 12.03.2007 15:50 |
Dan Corson III: Season of the Witch wrote: Hey, you wrote a book!Lester wrote a book??? I doubt it. |
| ern2150 12.03.2007 16:22 |
Lester Burnham wrote: Some people just can't read, Dan :-\I can read books, but I can't read you... ...at least not until it ships :) |
| ermin 12.03.2007 19:22 |
I love Queen, and I love Brian. However, he's been a good revisionist when it comes to history. Why change the authorship of I Want It All when the band agreed they would sign Queen as song authors to avoid fighting over the royalties? Did he consult Freddie (oh, wait, he's dead) or John (the guy doesn't bother anymore)? And, what did Brian mean when he said "In what we are doing now, Paul sings it for real, on the take"? Did not Freddie sing it for real? If, as Brian said, this is something new and different from what Queen did before, why they don't just name a new band and lay the name Queen to rest? I have no problem if they want to continue making music. That's what they do. However, I have a huge problem if they are using the name Queen. |
| Knute 12.03.2007 19:56 |
I think he might mean Paul records his vocals as the initial Bri and Rog tracks are recorded. In other words, he doesn't overdub his lead vocal later. Over what's called a guide vocal. Which is how it is typically done. Paul has a reputation as a one-take wonder. He nails the finished track in one or two takes so that approach doesn't surprise me at all. |
| mikereape 13.03.2007 00:03 |
please , if you don't like that brian is taking over the leadership of the queen name, then don't listen to him.get a life and get lost you ass holes. freddie died that was not brian , rodger ,john or your or my fault.if brian and rodger want to move on ,that there right, i for one LOVE IT, so get a life .i saw 10 shows on the tours and loved everyone of them.and will buy the new cd, and laugh when it sell's all over the world and your all sitting there saying queen died in 1991. no freddie died in 1991. (RIP he was the best front man of all time ) GO AWAY AND LIVE IN THE PAST , PLEASE |
| Dan C. 13.03.2007 01:59 |
PieterMC wrote:That's what I said.Dan Corson III: Season of the Witch wrote: Hey, you wrote a book!Lester wrote a book??? I doubt it. |
| bigV 13.03.2007 03:47 |
Knute wrote: In other words, he doesn't overdub his lead vocal later. Over what's called a guide vocal. Which is how it is typically done.It's not that that's how it's typically done, it's just that that's how Freddie used to do it. He insisted that there was a complete backing track (much like the ones on "The Greatest Karaoke Hits") so that he could add the vocals last. The fact that they are recording in a different manner with a different singer is yet another proof that they are a different group. But they are 50% of Queen which should entitle them to use the name and the legacy they worked so hard to create. @YourValentine: I couldn't have said it better myself :) V. |
| Adam Baboolal 13.03.2007 11:03 |
ermin wrote: And, what did Brian mean when he said "In what we are doing now, Paul sings it for real, on the take"? Did not Freddie sing it for real?Ah deary me... You see, you misunderstand the meaning. "On the take", is the clue. Brian means that Paul goes for it when they try a take whereas Freddie wouldn't. Perfectly illustrated in the FM boxset. So Rodgers has it the way he wants it, ready for the take. Rather than Freddie's process of trying a guide vocal and getting melodies and words/phrases ideas. It's just a different way of working. So many people jump to their own conclusions with this stuff. Is it blind emotion? Seriously, where's the logic going? Adam. |
| bigV 13.03.2007 11:08 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: So many people jump to their own conclusions with this stuff. Is it blind emotion? Seriously, where's the logic going?I knew it! You're secretly a Vulcan, aren't you! :D V. |
| john bodega 13.03.2007 14:05 |
bigV wrote:..... secretly?? Didn't he used to write Live Long and Prosper at the bottom of his posts??Adam Baboolal wrote: So many people jump to their own conclusions with this stuff. Is it blind emotion? Seriously, where's the logic going?I knew it! You're secretly a Vulcan, aren't you! :D V. Oh wait.... that was "Peace, Adam". Same thing. |
| Adam Baboolal 13.03.2007 17:15 |
LMAO!! You guys crack me up. Thanks for that laugh. I seriously needed it after a bad rehearsal of WWRY last night. Let's just say myself and 2 others fell flat on their faces and "died" onstage. Ugh... Cheers, Adam. |
| AlexRocks 13.03.2007 23:25 |
I was desperately hoping that this past year or so they would have been recording loads of stuff for a new single disc, some etxtra tracks for this release kept in the vaults, about a discs worth of material unrelated to the new l.p. to also be put into the vaults, and a discs worth of material for a follow up that could be a double c.d. set. All this time and they've recorded half of what today could be a c.d. I'm really saddened. I thought Roger Taylor said they were working on two c.d.s worth of material any way. He must be in another group. |
| akindofmagic 14.03.2007 01:05 |
8 songs is half of an one disc record? Well, there aren't that much of 16 track one disc albums that i know, if i exclud chillout/lounge compilations! and remebering that they said the songs are "epics", this take us into another place: epic have AT Least 5 minutes and 30 sec. Or 6 plus minutes. So we an have 45-48 minutes of music already recorded, wich by standart means a regular time album. I think that they will write at least more 4-5 songs, wich means lots o stuff from our boys. |
| bigV 14.03.2007 03:42 |
akindofmagic wrote: 8 songs is half of an one disc record? Well, there aren't that much of 16 track one disc albums that i know, if i exclud chillout/lounge compilations! and remebering that they said the songs are "epics", this take us into another place: epic have AT Least 5 minutes and 30 sec. Or 6 plus minutes. So we an have 45-48 minutes of music already recorded, wich by standart means a regular time album. I think that they will write at least more 4-5 songs, wich means lots o stuff from our boys.When the band was recording "The Miracle" they had 15-20 tracks to choose from for the final album. Eventually only ten songs ended up on the actual record, but most of the rest popped up as B-sides, some were left behind for "Innuendo" and "Made In Heaven" while others went to various solo records. V. |
| gnomo 14.03.2007 08:21 |
AlexRocks wrote: Roger Taylor said they were working on two c.d.s worth of material any way. He must be in another group.He must be quite annoyed by now that no-one ever gets his jokes... |
| The Real Wizard 14.03.2007 14:46 |
bigV wrote: When the band was recording "The Miracle" they had 15-20 tracks to choose from for the final album.Actually, I thought it was closer to 30. Isn't that what Freddie said on the Mike Read interview in '89? |
| AlexRocks 14.03.2007 17:16 |
Two fold. Queen's albums...at least the early ones were only about 40 minutes long if I am correct...they certainly got longer as the industry changed and how the industry would practice it in terms of songs being longer and albums too. Of course we don't have any idea how long the songs are. It does seem to be the practice in the industry to have anywhere between 11 and 14 songs nowadays. Fleetwood Mac had no less than 18 songs on their 2003 released entitled "Say You Will". It also was intended to be a double c.d. set. Then again no one really bought it either, noticed it was out, or cared. (I guess it did sell one million worldwide which is fine after all I guess...I don't know.) |
| bigV 14.03.2007 18:50 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:That's what I was aparently misquoting. I was just being too lazy to listen to the damn thing. Even though it's right here on my hard drive :DbigV wrote: When the band was recording "The Miracle" they had 15-20 tracks to choose from for the final album.Actually, I thought it was closer to 30. Isn't that what Freddie said on the Mike Read interview in '89? V. |
| The Real Wizard 15.03.2007 18:52 |
bigV wrote:It's worth a listen. At worst, you're listening to a band lie about their present and future. At best, you can listen, wishing they weren't.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:That's what I was aparently misquoting. I was just being too lazy to listen to the damn thing. Even though it's right here on my hard drive :D V.bigV wrote: When the band was recording "The Miracle" they had 15-20 tracks to choose from for the final album.Actually, I thought it was closer to 30. Isn't that what Freddie said on the Mike Read interview in '89? |
| bigV 15.03.2007 21:07 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:I know. I love the interview. I've often called it "arguably the most enjoyable 60 minutes I've spent as a Queen fan". I just meant that I was too lazy to listen to the whole thing again in order to get the exact quote.bigV wrote:It's worth a listen. At worst, you're listening to a band lie about their present and future. At best, you can listen, wishing they weren't.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:That's what I was aparently misquoting. I was just being too lazy to listen to the damn thing. Even though it's right here on my hard drive :D V.bigV wrote: When the band was recording "The Miracle" they had 15-20 tracks to choose from for the final album.Actually, I thought it was closer to 30. Isn't that what Freddie said on the Mike Read interview in '89? But I digress. Can't wait for the new album! I hope they won't delay it like they did the Boxes. V. |
| rocks. 15.03.2007 22:27 |
this interview, mind sharing? PLEASE :D Im sort of...lacking in that department :( Any friendliness would be seriously appreciated! :D |
| The Real Wizard 16.03.2007 02:21 |
rocks. wrote: this interview, mind sharing? PLEASE :D Im sort of...lacking in that department :( Any friendliness would be seriously appreciated! :DApparently it was officially released, and so they've given people a hard time here when sharing it. |
| bigV 16.03.2007 03:54 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:There's a magical place on the web called "Queen Heaven"...rocks. wrote: this interview, mind sharing? PLEASE :D Im sort of...lacking in that department :( Any friendliness would be seriously appreciated! :DApparently it was officially released, and so they've given people a hard time here when sharing it. V. |
| freddie lives 28817 16.03.2007 10:25 |
It's not the number of songs that dictated the running length of albums in the 1970's & 1980's, it is simply the fact that 23 minutes per side is the maximum amount of music you could get on a 12" vinyl album BEFORE you start delving into the realms of thinner gaps between the grooves and therefore lessening the quality of the recording. |
| August R. 16.03.2007 20:01 |
akindofmagic wrote: and remebering that they said the songs are "epics", this take us into another place: epic have AT Least 5 minutes and 30 sec. Or 6 plus minutes. So we an have 45-48 minutes of music already recorded, wich by standart means a regular time album.I don't think Brian meant that all the songs are going to be epics. He only said that the stuff they were working on at the moment had epic quality (and that was months ago when they had just a couple of songs). We don't know what has happened in the studio after that. The latest quotes from Brian and Roger have described new material being "organic" and "bluesy" and having "live feeling". Somehow this has made me think of NOTW album... |
| The Real Wizard 18.03.2007 02:13 |
freddie lives wrote: It's not the number of songs that dictated the running length of albums in the 1970's & 1980's, it is simply the fact that 23 minutes per side is the maximum amount of music you could get on a 12" vinyl album BEFORE you start delving into the realms of thinner gaps between the grooves and therefore lessening the quality of the recording.Bingo! August R. wrote: The latest quotes from Brian and Roger have described new material being "organic" and "bluesy" and having "live feeling". Somehow this has made me think of NOTW album...Good observation. I feel the same way! |
| rocks. 18.03.2007 20:49 |
bigV wrote:Is it this site?? linkSir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:There's a magical place on the web called "Queen Heaven"... V.rocks. wrote: this interview, mind sharing? PLEASE :D Im sort of...lacking in that department :( Any friendliness would be seriously appreciated! :DApparently it was officially released, and so they've given people a hard time here when sharing it. Cant find anything there :( Could you e-mail it to me? Pretty please? mine is whatmusthethink@queenzone.com |
| rocks. 25.03.2007 01:15 |
nobody? K :( |