Mistakes in 'Bechstein Debauchery'

I honestly don't care about [i]porkies[/i] per se, but about what they represent: intolerance and prejudices. The best way to make my point is through an example: 'A' is a huge Queen fan, s/he's got a CD collection outnumbering mine by hundreds, s/he's spent a fortune in Queen stuff, [i]but[/i] s/he doesn't give a damn about the songwriting process for [i]Don't Try So Hard[/i]. If s/he told me 'I don't care about that', should I reply with an agressive 'methinks you're telling porkies, there's NO WAY (capitalised as you put it) a person wouldn't care about that!'. No... that'd be ridiculous: s/he may be a big Queen fan, and still don't care about that side of their output.

Now, I've never considered myself a Queen fan (or a Beatles fan, or a Spice fan, or an ABBA fan, or a Green Day fan, etc), but I do have a lot of interest about their music and their work. Does it mean there's 'no way' I haven't listened to TCR? No - because, as a matter of fact, I haven't, and I really don't have any interest in it (likewise, I've never listened to [i]Angeline[/i], a song that also includes two Queen members who, by the way, are my two favourites).

The whole 'stubborn' point is also quite off IMO: I'd be stubborn if I:

* Covered my ears and started to scream bloody murder every time a CR song came on the radio or a public place.
* Left the mentioned public place.
* Started a campaign to murder Maylor because of their decisions.

But I'm not doing any of those. I'm simply a person who's not interested in buying or downloading an album. There are literally thousands of albums I've never heard, TCR happens to be one of them; and there are literally hundreds (at least) or albums featuring big names (e.g. Alan Parson's latest release) that I'm not interested in hearing, and TCR also happens to be one of them. Simple as that.

As for it being or not a Queen album: this isn't an absolute matter. Some people may think it is (and they've got all the right to do so), some people may think it's not (and we've got all the right to do so). Same with other stuff like compilations, live albums or even 'Flash' and 'Made in Heaven'. Another example: I visit Ultimate-Queen a lot; but do you see me trying to convince its webmaster to delete any info about TCR just because I don't consider it a Queen album? No, of course not. Likewise, my website doesn't (and won't) include TCR - Agree? Fine; Disagree? Fine. But I appreciate if you respected my POV (regardless of your agreeing or disagreeing with it).

Last but not least, I simply couldn't make a good section about TCR (even if I wanted to), because it would need me to:

* Be an expert (or at least a little knowledgeable) about Paul Rodgers - which I'm not.
* Be an expert (or at least a little knowledgeable) about 21st century e-keyboards - which I'm not.
* Listen to the album - which I haven't and don't plan to.

I don't know yet (even though my BD web has been well-received and it [i]is [/i]a good research, even with all the things it needs to improve on) if I'm the right person to comment on Queen discography (1970-1991, that is), but I [b]DO[/b] know I'm [b]NOT [/b]the right person to comment on TCR. Again, there are thousands of albums I wouldn't be interested in including or researching, TCR's one of them.

[QUOTE]

[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]

I honestly don't care about [i]porkies[/i] per se, but about what they represent: intolerance and prejudices. The best way to make my point is through an example: 'A' is a huge Queen fan, s/he's got a CD collection outnumbering mine by hundreds, s/he's spent a fortune in Queen stuff, [i]but[/i] s/he doesn't give a damn about the songwriting process for [i]Don't Try So Hard[/i]. If s/he told me 'I don't care about that', should I reply with an agressive 'methinks you're telling porkies, there's NO WAY (capitalised as you put it) a person wouldn't care about that!'. No... that'd be ridiculous: s/he may be a big Queen fan, and still don't care about that side of their output.

Now, I've never considered myself a Queen fan (or a Beatles fan, or a Spice fan, or an ABBA fan, or a Green Day fan, etc), but I do have a lot of interest about their music and their work. Does it mean there's 'no way' I haven't listened to TCR? No - because, as a matter of fact, I haven't, and I really don't have any interest in it (likewise, I've never listened to [i]Angeline[/i], a song that also includes two Queen members who, by the way, are my two favourites).

The whole 'stubborn' point is also quite off IMO: I'd be stubborn if I:

* Covered my ears and started to scream bloody murder every time a CR song came on the radio or a public place.
* Left the mentioned public place.
* Started a campaign to murder Maylor because of their decisions.

But I'm not doing any of those. I'm simply a person who's not interested in buying or downloading an album. There are literally thousands of albums I've never heard, TCR happens to be one of them; and there are literally hundreds (at least) or albums featuring big names (e.g. Alan Parson's latest release) that I'm not interested in hearing, and TCR also happens to be one of them. Simple as that.

As for it being or not a Queen album: this isn't an absolute matter. Some people may think it is (and they've got all the right to do so), some people may think it's not (and we've got all the right to do so). Same with other stuff like compilations, live albums or even 'Flash' and 'Made in Heaven'. Another example: I visit Ultimate-Queen a lot; but do you see me trying to convince its webmaster to delete any info about TCR just because I don't consider it a Queen album? No, of course not. Likewise, my website doesn't (and won't) include TCR - Agree? Fine; Disagree? Fine. But I appreciate if you respected my POV (regardless of your agreeing or disagreeing with it).

Last but not least, I simply couldn't make a good section about TCR (even if I wanted to), because it would need me to:

* Be an expert (or at least a little knowledgeable) about Paul Rodgers - which I'm not.
* Be an expert (or at least a little knowledgeable) about 21st century e-keyboards - which I'm not.
* Listen to the album - which I haven't and don't plan to.

I don't know yet (even though my BD web has been well-received and it [i]is [/i]a good research, even with all the things it needs to improve on) if I'm the right person to comment on Queen discography (1970-1991, that is), but I [b]DO[/b] know I'm [b]NOT [/b]the right person to comment on TCR. Again, there are thousands of albums I wouldn't be interested in including or researching, TCR's one of them.
[/QUOTE]


That's cool. I hope you do accept my apology still.

You've made your point on TCR. (I still think you could do a very good job on breaking it down as you have the other Queen albums/songs, but I respect your reasons for not doing so).

Of course I accept it, no problem about that.

: -)))

[*happy]

Sebastian - re All God's People, yes those vocals are heard best in the word "incredible". But that whole Chorus at the end - it is a marked difference from the rest of the Freddie-only voices which I think sounds like the three of them.

Yes, you're right. I'll correct that soon(er or later). So far I did add some info on [i]Bijou[/i]: http://sebastian.queenconcerts.com/e-bijou.htm

[QUOTE]

[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]

Yes, you're right. I'll correct that soon(er or later). So far I did add some info on [i]Bijou[/i]:[url=http://sebastian.queenconcerts.com:80/e-bijou.htm] http://sebastian.queenconcerts.com/e-bijou.htm[/url]
[/QUOTE]
Glad I checked this out, cos that Jeff B song is fantastic listening. I've never really given him much of a chance tbh

A big update's coming soon. Don't worry, it's not a design change, and I'm not starting from scratch... I'm simply correcting loads of details and elaborating on some bits and pieces for particular songs.

Thanks to all who've sent additional details to me both via e-mail and here. For the upcoming months I expect 'Bechstein Debauchery' to incorporate:

* Tracksheets for each of the multi's.
* Some of the things earlier BD versions had and I wouldn't like to see gone forever (e.g. stats, the seven 'no' analysis).
* More visuals: pix of the instruments and engineers, maps of the studios and tours, etc.
* 'Myth & Legend' stuff.
* How many voices, guitars, keys et al each song contains.
* Links to the Purposegames and Sporcle quizzes I've been creating lately.
* More sourced quotes.

And [i]hopefully[/i], some time in 2010, I'll include at least one of the following:

* A forum (I can't and don't want to compete against this one, it'd simply be a more musicological-oriented group).
* New platforms (YT, Facebook, Twitter).
* Some sort of 'music for dummies' handbook, using pieces from the Queen catalogue for examples and case-studies.
* Tops 10's (e.g. songs using the most/least instruments, songs that probably cost the most/least, etc).
* Something about the visual side of the band (videos, album covers, the logo).

Should any of you have any (sensible) suggestion, please feel free to post it (here or privately, your call).

I recently did analysis of the works of Ennio Morricone to look for specific techniques that he uses, trademarks if you wish. It would be cool to do something like this for especially Brian and Freddie, who I consider composers, rather than just songwriters. Since most of their music is so complex they should've had some kind of template of working, and not just taking a guitar or piano and see what comes out. Music written in the latter way wouldn't come out with lots of modulations.

A couple of years ago Mike Moran did some sort of lecture (in Montreux, I think) about Freddie as composer. I wasn't there and have never been able to know what he said. But it'd be interesting to contact him about it (although TBH, if I met him, I'd ask first about 'New Tricks').

A big update was just made: the design didn't change, but the background did, and I finally got rid of the annoying chess-board tables (they were literally blinding me), corrected loads and loads of mistakes (there are still many left, I'm sure), added several photographs and added some detailed info on some studios, and some more general about others.

Enjoy!

Hi Sebastian,

thanks for your great website. Will you add the single B-sides? Maybe I haven't paid enough attention...

You asked for some criticism, and here's my 0.00002 cents. I had to move from my retirement to try to help you with this incredible amount of information you have with a very humble suggestion.

There will always be those that will criticize your work in terms of the information that's there - "Oh there's a typo here" and stuff like that (and other useless criticisms like the lack of TCR info). It is, to me, irrelevant. Even when there are some minor mistakes (and I'm sure there are some somewhere). I think even the band members themselves probably don't recall with extreme detail everything that happens. It's been 40 years anyway.

Organizing such a huge amount of information isn't easy, perhaps it's as difficult as collect it. And also displaying them in a good way or in a way that everyone will enjoy or think it's the best isn't an easy task as well, some will always prefer it to be classified in some odd way. But that's not the point of my suggestion. You can't please everyone at once.

I honestly think you should get rid of these DHTML/Javascript way of displaying the infos of the clickable links, in these small white pop-up things. Or else, put some way to close these "mini-pages" that appear when you click a link. If you're using Javascript, that's easy. Or you could use a simple mouseover, to display the info just when you roll over the link. As it is now, if you click even a single link in any page, some of the other links get visually blocked (even in large monitors) and can't be clicked again unless you refresh the page (or did I miss something? Firefox and IE seems to be the same for me, there's no hidden "close window" link or something).

IMHO, the best way (although not the easiest... but huge sites tend to have these problems) would be to have individual pages for each of these links, the traditional way. It's the best way for sites with a lot of content. And in these pages, you can put all the info for that specific equipment/producer/song/whatever, without space limitations. The way it is now, even if you make your browser font bigger, the text is cut and it's ruined.

For example, for a page for a certain amp you could add a short description pretty much as it is now, some pictures, and say "this amp was used in this and this songs" (but this is already implied when you click a song name, for example). Or "this guitar was used with alternate tuning here and here and here", and it can be further enriched with more details as you wish or as you find some more info. All this in an individual page of its own for that specific subject, instead of clogging the page with these white popups. Will it be a hard work? Not really. Plus I think with the system you have now you probably already have "mini pages" of each of these links and their descriptions already typed anyway, all you would have to do is concentrate them all in one link about the subject and fix the links to the "new" page. Just instead of displaying the small white ugly thing, it will appear in a new browser page.

Also, the way it is, with the need of refreshing the page to clean the mess, you also stress your server, sending lots of requests and (maybe) making it slower than it should.

A site with such good reading and information as yours can't be ruined by some odd HTML.

The pop-up windows can be closed by clicking on the link again. But yes, there are loads of things to be corrected and extended.

Here's my 2 cents about your site:
for me it was better in its "old" version, where for every song there was a lot of infos that now seems to miss in this new version (or at least are "condensed"); in fact I still have saved on my HD the "old" pages and others that I was missing I tried to recatch them through Internet Archives (although I still miss them quite a few...I don't know if yourself or someone else can help me to find them).

 



Apart from that, in my humble opinion Freddie does backing vocals in I'm in love with my car, while you state (in both the old and new version of his website) that is Roger and Roger alone. What does everyone else think?