[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]But to suggest that this whole thing was a calculated plan from Brian and Roger of promoting the album and tour is is excessively cynical and jaded.
Why didn't they announce a new album coming out?[/QUOTE]
The WHOLE thing wasn't a calculated plan, but it certainly was a lucky coincidence for the band. I'm quite certain Brian would have been able to secure a more "commercially appealing" line-up if he'd genuinely tried, but that didn't happen.
A big part of that must also be his ego, because it also doesn't allow him to play to smaller audiences as a solo artist. ;)
There's no point in advertising the new album because
a) very few people are going to buy the new album anyway, and
b) Brian gets his kicks (and money) from touring and selling the old albums, and the best way to do both of those is to play the biggest hits live, as close to the original versions as possible... Like happened yesterday.
If I may ask YOU something, would you give an honest opinion?
Are the Queen songs (as heard yesterday) the best possible versions these people can come up with, or would they benefit from new (less like Queen '86) arrangements?[/QUOTE]
I really don't see how they could change the arrangements without making it a completely new song.
Let's take an example. Brian is going to play the same accompaniment lines over WATC that he has always done, and that's only natural.
After all it always has been him. Every guitar line and every drum fill is integral to the composition of the song and are lovely just by themselves. There's no need to change it just because there is a different vocalist over it.
And as far as the vocals, Paul is sticking with the melody as he should since it's what defines the song. Just like Brian sticks with Paul Kossoff's lines during the All Right Now solo because that's such an integral part of that tune.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Another thing I believe is that songs live independently from the people that created them.
Songs are meant to be eternal long after the mortal coil that gave birth to them has passed on.
So Q+PR becomes in effect stewards of the integrity of the songs.
People weren't clapping in synchronous fashion because it was Paul Rodgers on stage.
It's because of the song and one hundred years from now, long after ALL of us are gone, when Brian's great great great grandchild's band plays WWRY at Hyde Park, the entire audience will clap in time there as well.
Songs are meant to be eternal long after the mortal coil that gave birth to them has passed on.
So Q+PR becomes in effect stewards of the integrity of the songs.
People weren't clapping in synchronous fashion because it was Paul Rodgers on stage.
It's because of the song and one hundred years from now, long after ALL of us are gone, when Brian's great great great grandchild's band plays WWRY at Hyde Park, the entire audience will clap in time there as well.
I don't think it was calculated or anything - definitely not by Brian.
I think that the band's management / marketing team can't help themselves though...
I think that the artist list is a little shallow though. Not that i am a big fan (anymore) but what about Elton John? He is a big AIDS campaigner.
I watched most of the show - but i think that they didn't really go deep enough into why AIDS is a big problem in Africa (~25% of South African population are infected). And - perhaps an "explanation" or mini-bio on Nelson Mandela's life.
I think that the band's management / marketing team can't help themselves though...
I think that the artist list is a little shallow though. Not that i am a big fan (anymore) but what about Elton John? He is a big AIDS campaigner.
I watched most of the show - but i think that they didn't really go deep enough into why AIDS is a big problem in Africa (~25% of South African population are infected). And - perhaps an "explanation" or mini-bio on Nelson Mandela's life.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I really don't see how they could change the arrangements without making it a completely new song.[/QUOTE]
Let's start with an easier example than WATC...
In WWRY during the verse, Paul's vocal sounds a bit flat and monotonous, and lacks the power you would need for those lyrics. On the other hand the adlibs in the chorus are a new idea for Queen (as far as I know), and suit Paul's style really well. The drum fill after the chorus isn't the same as recorded on the album, but it sounds more groovier and more like you would expect from Paul's band.
So why not drop the verses altogether and stick the chorus-singalong in a medley somewhere. The song as a whole sounds sloppy, but that would be a VERY good minute.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Let's take an example. Brian is going to play the same accompaniment lines over WATC that he has always done, and that's only natural.
After all it always has been him. Every guitar line and every drum fill is integral to the composition of the song and are lovely just by themselves.[/QUOTE]
I know Brian's stuck in a rut with every Queen song, but that's exactly the problem. They can NEVER be the original compositions again with a different singer, so it's absolutely pointless to try replicate the rest perfectly either.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]There's no need to change it just because there is a different vocalist over it.[/QUOTE]
No, that's the perfect reason to change it if the new version suits the singer better, and therefore sounds better.
Now we can get to WATC.
Paul has a nice tone to his voice, but it just doesn't sit in with the piano part of the verse. I say drop the piano part altogether, and sing it acappella, or with minimal synthesiser backing. The build-up to the chorus sounds just about fine as it is, so that can be left alone.
The most annoying part about the QPR version of the song is the chorus. Brian and Roger do their best Wembley '86 imitation, but that doesn't fit in with Paul's vocals. As long as Paul keeps singing the lines in his own style, Roger's backing vocals aren't clicking with him very well. It's like one of them is a bar behind or ahead half of the time. Do we need to have the constant backing vocals here at all?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]And as far as the vocals, Paul is sticking with the melody as he should since it's what defines the song. Just like Brian sticks with Paul Kossoff's lines during the All Right Now solo because that's such an integral part of that tune.[/QUOTE]
NO, Paul does not stick to the original melody, and that's his style. That's the problem in a nutshell. The Free / Bad Co songs were written with his style in mind, and work perfectly well when Brian and Roger stick to the original lines.
Paul doesn't stick to the original melody lines of the Queen songs, so there's very little point for Brian and Roger to do faithful copies either.
THAT is what makes them sound like a karaoke/cover band: They have the original "backing tracks" for the Queen songs, but the vocals don't quite seem to match them most of the time.
Let's start with an easier example than WATC...
In WWRY during the verse, Paul's vocal sounds a bit flat and monotonous, and lacks the power you would need for those lyrics. On the other hand the adlibs in the chorus are a new idea for Queen (as far as I know), and suit Paul's style really well. The drum fill after the chorus isn't the same as recorded on the album, but it sounds more groovier and more like you would expect from Paul's band.
So why not drop the verses altogether and stick the chorus-singalong in a medley somewhere. The song as a whole sounds sloppy, but that would be a VERY good minute.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Let's take an example. Brian is going to play the same accompaniment lines over WATC that he has always done, and that's only natural.
After all it always has been him. Every guitar line and every drum fill is integral to the composition of the song and are lovely just by themselves.[/QUOTE]
I know Brian's stuck in a rut with every Queen song, but that's exactly the problem. They can NEVER be the original compositions again with a different singer, so it's absolutely pointless to try replicate the rest perfectly either.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]There's no need to change it just because there is a different vocalist over it.[/QUOTE]
No, that's the perfect reason to change it if the new version suits the singer better, and therefore sounds better.
Now we can get to WATC.
Paul has a nice tone to his voice, but it just doesn't sit in with the piano part of the verse. I say drop the piano part altogether, and sing it acappella, or with minimal synthesiser backing. The build-up to the chorus sounds just about fine as it is, so that can be left alone.
The most annoying part about the QPR version of the song is the chorus. Brian and Roger do their best Wembley '86 imitation, but that doesn't fit in with Paul's vocals. As long as Paul keeps singing the lines in his own style, Roger's backing vocals aren't clicking with him very well. It's like one of them is a bar behind or ahead half of the time. Do we need to have the constant backing vocals here at all?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]And as far as the vocals, Paul is sticking with the melody as he should since it's what defines the song. Just like Brian sticks with Paul Kossoff's lines during the All Right Now solo because that's such an integral part of that tune.[/QUOTE]
NO, Paul does not stick to the original melody, and that's his style. That's the problem in a nutshell. The Free / Bad Co songs were written with his style in mind, and work perfectly well when Brian and Roger stick to the original lines.
Paul doesn't stick to the original melody lines of the Queen songs, so there's very little point for Brian and Roger to do faithful copies either.
THAT is what makes them sound like a karaoke/cover band: They have the original "backing tracks" for the Queen songs, but the vocals don't quite seem to match them most of the time.
Paul has a sort of "R & B" voice, you know, with lots of oohh-ing, etc... Very few artists don't do this sort of thing nowadays. Tragically - i don't really like this "sound".
Freddie didn't "R & B" things... So there is a big difference there.
Freddie didn't "R & B" things... So there is a big difference there.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Richard Orchard wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Paul has a sort of "R & B" voice, you know, with lots of oohh-ing, etc... Very few artists don't do this sort of thing nowadays. Tragically - i don't really like this "sound".
Freddie didn't "R & B" things... So there is a big difference there.[/QUOTE]
Se now we have "rock" songs that were written for Freddie's voice by Queen, and an "R&B" singer to perform them. Something has to change, or it's going to continue as the mismatch it is.
I'd say it would be better to change the songs, but if others would rather see them change singer...
Freddie didn't "R & B" things... So there is a big difference there.[/QUOTE]
Se now we have "rock" songs that were written for Freddie's voice by Queen, and an "R&B" singer to perform them. Something has to change, or it's going to continue as the mismatch it is.
I'd say it would be better to change the songs, but if others would rather see them change singer...
Paul does stick with the melody for the most part.
The melody is the skeleton and then Paul adds his own muscle tissue ligaments and blood..lol
But it's still faithful to the original melody.
I would say it's close to 85-90%
I mean give me an example on the Mandela performance where he radically changes the melody.
The melody is the skeleton and then Paul adds his own muscle tissue ligaments and blood..lol
But it's still faithful to the original melody.
I would say it's close to 85-90%
I mean give me an example on the Mandela performance where he radically changes the melody.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Paul does stick with the melody for the most part.
The melody is the skeleton and then Paul adds his own muscle tissue ligaments and blood..lol
But it's still faithful to the original melody.
I would say it's close to 85-90%
I mean give me an example on the Mandela performance where he radically changes the melody.
[/QUOTE]
The example is his "R&Bing", or warbling all around the actual melody... You know, the muscle tissue he adds.
If the arrangement of the song doesn't take it into account at all, it ends up sounding very unprofessional in an almost cover-band way.
I would say an average karaoke singer in the local pub will stay in melody 90% of the time, and you wouldn't call that a very good performance. ;)
The melody is the skeleton and then Paul adds his own muscle tissue ligaments and blood..lol
But it's still faithful to the original melody.
I would say it's close to 85-90%
I mean give me an example on the Mandela performance where he radically changes the melody.
[/QUOTE]
The example is his "R&Bing", or warbling all around the actual melody... You know, the muscle tissue he adds.
If the arrangement of the song doesn't take it into account at all, it ends up sounding very unprofessional in an almost cover-band way.
I would say an average karaoke singer in the local pub will stay in melody 90% of the time, and you wouldn't call that a very good performance. ;)
It was a great show by Q+PR. I really enjoyed it!
And if other artists weren´t there, maybe they couldn´t make it, or weren´t invited, or declined it. That´s no big deal.
Considering the setlist i don´t think that they were promoting the new album. Major acts are on tour, or preparing to go on tour, and it´s not easy to put them all at the same concert.
But i enjoyed it!
Take care
And if other artists weren´t there, maybe they couldn´t make it, or weren´t invited, or declined it. That´s no big deal.
Considering the setlist i don´t think that they were promoting the new album. Major acts are on tour, or preparing to go on tour, and it´s not easy to put them all at the same concert.
But i enjoyed it!
Take care
The most important thing is that they have a good time together, and I'm sure that for many people (as for me) it's perfect, just because QPR are enjoying their music so much. I understand each critic, I find some of them very well explained, but definitely, we can't judge and love at the same time, imo. The problem, maybe, is that I can't help loving what they do...
I'll just add one more comment before leaving this topic until the next performance. ;)
Paul's vocal strengths compared to Freddie (I think) are in singing with minimal accompaniment, and singing in harmony with the guitar parts. These are the common things with any of the five Free/Bad Co songs I can remember. :P
Any of the harmony parts between vocals and instruments would be instantly lost due to Paul singing differently than Freddie, and additionally Queen songs rely heavily on vocal harmonies and a sort of duet between the vocals and other instruments. (E.g. We Will Rock You, We Are The Champions)
Because of what Paul is used to, he has great troubles in keeping his vocal performance within the limits of the original songs. The end result sounds like an unrehearsed mess, just like yesterday.
It could be remedied if he sang in a different way, and some of the songs were slightly rearranged. An easy fix would be to choose songs that are better suited to his style of singing.
But we all know nothing of the sort is going to happen, and this topic will keep reappearing. ;)
Paul's vocal strengths compared to Freddie (I think) are in singing with minimal accompaniment, and singing in harmony with the guitar parts. These are the common things with any of the five Free/Bad Co songs I can remember. :P
Any of the harmony parts between vocals and instruments would be instantly lost due to Paul singing differently than Freddie, and additionally Queen songs rely heavily on vocal harmonies and a sort of duet between the vocals and other instruments. (E.g. We Will Rock You, We Are The Champions)
Because of what Paul is used to, he has great troubles in keeping his vocal performance within the limits of the original songs. The end result sounds like an unrehearsed mess, just like yesterday.
It could be remedied if he sang in a different way, and some of the songs were slightly rearranged. An easy fix would be to choose songs that are better suited to his style of singing.
But we all know nothing of the sort is going to happen, and this topic will keep reappearing. ;)
Yeah, it was ok. It didn´t blow me away and I think they should have rehersed One Vision more than once.
What a load of tosh Tero, but thanks for your input anyways.
You make it sound as if he struggles mightily to even keep up, when the truth of the matter is he barely breaks a sweat. Just like he has always done since 1968.
If you were REALLY spot on, you would have all kinds people backing you up saying, yeah I think you are right, this sounds like a mess. But that is not what is happening.
He sounded fantastic last night. It was a strong performance.
You just refuse to appreciate his style applied to Queen material. That's fine.
You are certainly not alone, but don't kid yourself that the majority of people who has seen last night's show share your viewpoint.
You make it sound as if he struggles mightily to even keep up, when the truth of the matter is he barely breaks a sweat. Just like he has always done since 1968.
If you were REALLY spot on, you would have all kinds people backing you up saying, yeah I think you are right, this sounds like a mess. But that is not what is happening.
He sounded fantastic last night. It was a strong performance.
You just refuse to appreciate his style applied to Queen material. That's fine.
You are certainly not alone, but don't kid yourself that the majority of people who has seen last night's show share your viewpoint.
You know, I have to speak up about Paul's singing. Last night, for the first time, I really felt "wow" when I heard him singing the songs I'd heard him do many times before and felt like he was stronger than ever.
And I have to agree with Knute's post above. Well put and to the point.
Adam.
And I have to agree with Knute's post above. Well put and to the point.
Adam.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]What a load of tosh Tero, but thanks for your input anyways.
You make it sound as if he struggles mightily to even keep up, when the truth of the matter is he barely breaks a sweat. Just like he has always done since 1968.
If you were REALLY spot on, you would have all kinds people backing you up saying, yeah I think you are right, this sounds like a mess. But that is not what is happening.
He sounded fantastic last night. It was a strong performance.
You just refuse to appreciate his style applied to Queen material. That's fine.
You are certainly not alone, but don't kid yourself that the majority of people who has seen last night's show share your viewpoint.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with this. In fact it was Paul who led the band through the performance yesterday. Sure the Queen material sounds different, SMGO had a lot more of a soulful feel something that I actually liked a lot. As far as Im concerned he made the songs his own effortlessly yesterday and the chemistry with his voice and the Queen-sound was fabulous.
You make it sound as if he struggles mightily to even keep up, when the truth of the matter is he barely breaks a sweat. Just like he has always done since 1968.
If you were REALLY spot on, you would have all kinds people backing you up saying, yeah I think you are right, this sounds like a mess. But that is not what is happening.
He sounded fantastic last night. It was a strong performance.
You just refuse to appreciate his style applied to Queen material. That's fine.
You are certainly not alone, but don't kid yourself that the majority of people who has seen last night's show share your viewpoint.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with this. In fact it was Paul who led the band through the performance yesterday. Sure the Queen material sounds different, SMGO had a lot more of a soulful feel something that I actually liked a lot. As far as Im concerned he made the songs his own effortlessly yesterday and the chemistry with his voice and the Queen-sound was fabulous.