Mistakes in 'Bechstein Debauchery'

I'm interested in Queen music, not in Brian + Paul + Roger. Likewise, I've only listened to 'Mr Bad Guy' once, and to [i]Body Language[/i] twice (one of which was drunk so it doesn't count - but I even enjoyed it).

I often thought the website existed as some sort of point of reference, as in factual. I think what you have just revealed about parts of it being down to what you interpret with your own ears undermines its usefulness.

As for Seb not hearing TCR. I am 33 years old and bought my first Queen album when I was 10 with all the money I had in the world (Live Magic if you must know) and went on to become a serious collector and am not remotely interested in anything to do with QPR. I heard CLebrity when it was on Al Murray and thats it.  Had they not had called themselves Queen I would have given it a go. I understand their reasons for doing so but think its wrong.

[QUOTE]





























[b]mooghead wrote: [/b]















I often thought the website existed as some sort of point of reference, as in factual. I think what you have just revealed about parts of it being down to what you interpret with your own ears undermines its usefulness.













[/QUOTE]
A 'factual' web can't exist since even the people who were there make mistakes and misremember stuff. That's precisely why it's important to keep updating and correcting the info whenever new data are discussed or revealed (e.g. Dr May using a different guitar for a [i]Flash's Theme[/i] reprise, info that I haven't updated yet BTW).

Oh, and by the way: I haven't '[i]just revealed about parts of it being down to what (I) interpret with (my) own ears[/i]' - AFAIK, it was never a secret.

As for TCR: there's no way I can (or mean to) convince anybody not to listen to it; likewise, there's no way anybody can convince me to listen to it. I think the best is to agree to disagree. Same with [i]NOBY[/i] and other stuff. Keep in mind that, for that same reason, I can't (and don't want to) have an opinion about TCR and whether it's good or not - I don't know, and I couldn't care less.

For the World Cup, I suppose I'm supporting England although I'd also like the Netherlands to win at least once.

[QUOTE]

[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]





























































[b]mooghead wrote: [/b]































I often thought the website existed as some sort of point of reference, as in factual. I think what you have just revealed about parts of it being down to what you interpret with your own ears undermines its usefulness.





























[/QUOTE]
A 'factual' web can't exist since even the people who were there make mistakes and misremember stuff. That's precisely why it's important to keep updating and correcting the info whenever new data are discussed or revealed (e.g. Dr May using a different guitar for a [i]Flash's Theme[/i] reprise, info that I haven't updated yet BTW).

Oh, and by the way: I haven't '[i]just revealed about parts of it being down to what (I) interpret with (my) own ears[/i]' - AFAIK, it was never a secret.

As for TCR: there's no way I can (or mean to) convince anybody not to listen to it; likewise, there's no way anybody can convince me to listen to it. I think the best is to agree to disagree. Same with [i]NOBY[/i] and other stuff. Keep in mind that, for that same reason, I can't (and don't want to) have an opinion about TCR and whether it's good or not - I don't know, and I couldn't care less.

For the World Cup, I suppose I'm supporting England although I'd also like the Netherlands to win at least once.
[/QUOTE]



His website is wonderful - I'm really confused as to why a simple request for improvements has led to some criticism that isn't well thought out.  One could argue all day about the difference between fact and opinion - also well-informed opinion can reveal interesting facts even if it turns out to be slightly wrong.

The broken links from the debut album (a huge blunder on my side) have been corrected, as well as [i]The Loser in the End[/i]. Enjoy!

As for fact vs opinion, I think that, for BD, a datum can only be 100% factual if there's a filmed evidence that 'x' instrument was played by 'x' person during 'x' bit of 'x' song (e.g. John using the Fender Elite on [i]One Vision[/i]). And it can only be 100% wrong if there's a filmed evidence that 'x' wasn't used... (e.g. if I claimed John had played a Fender Jazz on [i]One Vision[/i]) or if there's any chronological or physical impediment for the claim to be true (e.g. Brian couldn't have played a Korg M1 on [i]Flash[/i] because they didn't exist).

Everything else is in some grey (or coloured) area, since, as I said earlier, even a direct claim coming from a person who was there can be totally wrong (e.g. Dr May saying [i]Master-Stroke[/i] was done at Wessex), or probably/partially wrong (e.g. David Richards saying [i]Ga Ga[/i] was recorded in Munich) or it can contradict others (e.g. the [i]Under Pressure [/i]bass-line). While I can't do miracles or provide a 100% error-proof research, what I can (and want to) at least try is to offer a well-organised and well-written research offering:

* Detailed info about who-sang, who-played and who-wrote what.
* Further details than those provided by the liner notes (e.g. 'II' lists John on acoustic guitar, but it doesn't say where).
* Corrections over stuff that was wrong or missing in the original liner notes (e.g. Trident not being mentioned in 'Opera', probably because of their animosity at the time).
* The odd 'scholar' piece of info, sort of tailored to musicians (e.g. intervals, modulations).

It's absolutely NOT a lame 'Queen are gods, all the rest are shite' thing, it's not an offensive 'I hate PR and want to re-write history' crusade, it's not an 'I claim to know everything and this should/shall be your Bible from now on' self-gratification collection and it's not a blog. It does, of course, include the odd (in)direct criticism (e.g. read the first couple of lines in http://sebastian.queenconcerts.com/4-gcompany.htm), the odd (well-deserved IMO) praise to their musical abilities and the odd nod to my own tastes (http://sebastian.queenconcerts.com/9.htm  includes comments about football and the Bee Gees), but they're only secondary and auxiliary.

What 'BD' [i]should[/i] become, some day (one day), is a reliable (as much as possible) [i]point of reference[/i] for:

* People who want to know more about the songs Queen (i.e. 1970-1991 plus the odd 'MiH' remake) did.
* Musicians (amateurs to experts) who want or need some practical examples of gambits (e.g. the middle-eight in [i]Sail Away Sweet Sister[/i] is a gr8 lesson on tension and resolution - and of course singing).
* People who want to make a similar website about other acts (including, of course BM+RT+PR).

Come to think about it, I should add the above lines to my web (in the index). What d'you think?

As to the trivia about the song Innuendo: I think it has been discussed on here before that the pattern is not just similar to Am I Evil, but that it in fact relates to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Planets#Adaptations_of_The_Planets), see the part "Popular Music".

[QUOTE]

[b]Angeline wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]





[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]





[QUOTE]





























































































































[b]mooghead wrote: [/b]































































I often thought the website existed as some sort of point of reference, as in factual. I think what you have just revealed about parts of it being down to what you interpret with your own ears undermines its usefulness.





























































[/QUOTE]
A 'factual' web can't exist since even the people who were there make mistakes and misremember stuff. That's precisely why it's important to keep updating and correcting the info whenever new data are discussed or revealed (e.g. Dr May using a different guitar for a [i]Flash's Theme[/i] reprise, info that I haven't updated yet BTW).

Oh, and by the way: I haven't '[i]just revealed about parts of it being down to what (I) interpret with (my) own ears[/i]' - AFAIK, it was never a secret.

As for TCR: there's no way I can (or mean to) convince anybody not to listen to it; likewise, there's no way anybody can convince me to listen to it. I think the best is to agree to disagree. Same with [i]NOBY[/i] and other stuff. Keep in mind that, for that same reason, I can't (and don't want to) have an opinion about TCR and whether it's good or not - I don't know, and I couldn't care less.

For the World Cup, I suppose I'm supporting England although I'd also like the Netherlands to win at least once.
[/QUOTE]



His website is wonderful - I'm really confused as to why a simple request for improvements has led to some criticism that isn't well thought out. 

I'm not critisising, I am just saying I thought it was fact based. Of course a factual web page can exist, as long as it contains just fact, anything that is a risk of being 'misremembered' doesnt go in



[/QUOTE]

If it couldn't contain anything that had the risk of being misremembered, it would be a virtually empty website - only the title of each song, the credit and the date of release could go in since we wouldn't be able to tell for sure if certain bit was played with the RS or Dr May used a different guitar just there, etc.

[i]Am I Evil[/i] takes the melodic motif from Mars, but not the beat. To be fair, that beat (also similar to Ravel's [i]Bolero[/i]) was probably 'invented' loads of times by different people in different moments.

Easy to resolve this problem and make a plainly factual website. All Sebastian has to do is write FACT! after each sentence. ; -)))

Thats...... 8 sentences.

Mooghead: You can put your own factual website if you want. It's not my fault that you just discovered something thousands of people already knew 6+ years ago.

This is not a criticism, but your website is fascinating (even for folk like me who have no formal musical education of any sort). Surely by adding TCR you can test your own knowledge and skills and add an intersting section on how the remaining Queen members have grown or just rely on the same old techniques they used on previous Queen albums? I'd love to know what parts are driven by Maylor instead of PR. I'd love to know how they are involved in each song and how much influence they had on the album.

Doesn't this make sense Sebastian?

(It's your website and i know you've got every right to add what you please, but give it a few minutes of thought before replying please, as your posts are as interesting as Sir GH, FriedChicken, PG, John Stuart, Yara and so on and so on).

> This is not a criticism, but your website is fascinating (even for folk like me who have no formal musical education of any sort).

Neither do I, by the way.

> Surely by adding TCR you can test your own knowledge and skills

I don't need to 'test (my) own knowledge', this is not a university. And if I wanted to 'test my own knowledge', there are loads of albums to do so: ANATO, ADATR (there's always a lot more to say about those), and I'm way more interested in those ones.

> and add an intersting section on how the remaining Queen members have grown or just rely on the same old techniques they used on previous Queen albums?

BD's a website about Queen, not about Maylor or their post-Queen activities. Interesting sections still to add are many: quotes, notation, trademarks, contemporaries, arrangements, classical influences... so there's still a lot of work to do concerning the 1970-1991 era. As I said earlier, people who want to know about TCR can visit other websites, not mine.

> I'd love to know what parts are driven by Maylor instead of PR.

And I'd love to have access to all multi-tracks ever issued by any band I'm interested in. But we can't have everything. Although in this particular case, you can have your own website and analyse those details... it's not 'easy peasy', but it's not too hard either.

> I'd love to know how they are involved in each song and how much influence they had on the album.

Great! But, again, for that you're gonna have to make the research yourself or wait for it to appear somewhere else. I'm only interested in Queen music for BD, not Maylor+Rodgers, not Maylor+Lambert and not Deacy+Gregory.

> Doesn't this make sense Sebastian?

It does... but you're asking the wrong person. Why should I listen to somebody who was attacking my posts a couple of days ago, and then accused me of telling porkies?

> It's your website and i know you've got every right to add what you please, but give it a few minutes of thought before replying please, as your posts are as interesting as Sir GH, FriedChicken, PG, John Stuart,
Yara and so on and so on.

Maybe you should ask one of them to make a website on TCR. It surely would be interesting.

[QUOTE]

[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]

> This is not a criticism, but your website is fascinating (even for folk like me who have no formal musical education of any sort).

Neither do I, by the way.

> Surely by adding TCR you can test your own knowledge and skills

I don't need to 'test (my) own knowledge', this is not a university. And if I wanted to 'test my own knowledge', there are loads of albums to do so: ANATO, ADATR (there's always a lot more to say about those), and I'm way more interested in those ones.

> and add an intersting section on how the remaining Queen members have grown or just rely on the same old techniques they used on previous Queen albums?

BD's a website about Queen, not about Maylor or their post-Queen activities. Interesting sections still to add are many: quotes, notation, trademarks, contemporaries, arrangements, classical influences... so there's still a lot of work to do concerning the 1970-1991 era. As I said earlier, people who want to know about TCR can visit other websites, not mine.

> I'd love to know what parts are driven by Maylor instead of PR.

And I'd love to have access to all multi-tracks ever issued by any band I'm interested in. But we can't have everything. Although in this particular case, you can have your own website and analyse those details... it's not 'easy peasy', but it's not too hard either.

> I'd love to know how they are involved in each song and how much influence they had on the album.

Great! But, again, for that you're gonna have to make the research yourself or wait for it to appear somewhere else. I'm only interested in Queen music for BD, not Maylor+Rodgers, not Maylor+Lambert and not Deacy+Gregory.

> Doesn't this make sense Sebastian?

It does... but you're asking the wrong person. Why should I listen to somebody who was attacking my posts a couple of days ago, and then accused me of telling porkies?

> It's your website and i know you've got every right to add what you please, but give it a few minutes of thought before replying please, as your posts are as interesting as Sir GH, FriedChicken, PG, John Stuart,
Yara and so on and so on.

Maybe you should ask one of them to make a website on TCR. It surely would be interesting. [/QUOTE]
Genuinely sorry for the "porkies" remark. I didn't think it was that big of a deal, obviously was to you.

Fried Chicken said "Too bad your own stubbornness is in the way of listening to some good music, Sebastian ;-)". I wasn't too sure what he meant then... I do now. (Sorry for using your quote here FC).

The Cosmos Rocks is a Queen album though, it's a pity you can't accept that, cos it's not that bad.

I don't hold grudgies by the way... I enjoy your posts. If you feel you have to analyse and defend every remark given towards you then so be it, if i offended you I apologize. Best of luck with your Queen website.

[QUOTE]

[b]Van Basten 9 wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]

 



[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]



> This is not a criticism, but your website is fascinating (even for folk like me who have no formal musical education of any sort).

Neither do I, by the way.

> Surely by adding TCR you can test your own knowledge and skills

I don't need to 'test (my) own knowledge', this is not a university. And if I wanted to 'test my own knowledge', there are loads of albums to do so: ANATO, ADATR (there's always a lot more to say about those), and I'm way more interested in those ones.

> and add an intersting section on how the remaining Queen members have grown or just rely on the same old techniques they used on previous Queen albums?

BD's a website about Queen, not about Maylor or their post-Queen activities. Interesting sections still to add are many: quotes, notation, trademarks, contemporaries, arrangements, classical influences... so there's still a lot of work to do concerning the 1970-1991 era. As I said earlier, people who want to know about TCR can visit other websites, not mine.

> I'd love to know what parts are driven by Maylor instead of PR.

And I'd love to have access to all multi-tracks ever issued by any band I'm interested in. But we can't have everything. Although in this particular case, you can have your own website and analyse those details... it's not 'easy peasy', but it's not too hard either.

> I'd love to know how they are involved in each song and how much influence they had on the album.

Great! But, again, for that you're gonna have to make the research yourself or wait for it to appear somewhere else. I'm only interested in Queen music for BD, not Maylor+Rodgers, not Maylor+Lambert and not Deacy+Gregory.

> Doesn't this make sense Sebastian?

It does... but you're asking the wrong person. Why should I listen to somebody who was attacking my posts a couple of days ago, and then accused me of telling porkies?

> It's your website and i know you've got every right to add what you please, but give it a few minutes of thought before replying please, as your posts are as interesting as Sir GH, FriedChicken, PG, John Stuart,
Yara and so on and so on.

Maybe you should ask one of them to make a website on TCR. It surely would be interesting.

[/QUOTE]
Genuinely sorry for the "porkies" remark. I didn't think it was that big of a deal, obviously was to you.

Fried Chicken said "Too bad your own stubbornness is in the way of listening to some good music, Sebastian ;-)". I wasn't too sure what he meant then... I do now. (Sorry for using your quote here FC).

The Cosmos Rocks is a Queen album though, it's a pity you can't accept that, cos it's not that bad.

I don't hold grudgies by the way... I enjoy your posts. If you feel you have to analyse and defend every remark given towards you then so be it, if i offended you I apologize. Best of luck with your Queen website.





[/QUOTE]
Way to go. Always nice to see a gesture of apology. ; -)))