Bohemian Rhapsody: Myth & Truth

Mooghead: You can simply stay clear of any topic I start, and that way your fact-full mind won't risk being damaged by my less-than-100% inferior threads.  Of course, I can only guess you're the one writing those lines because, for all I know, that's mere speculation (after all, I'm not watching you typing). I hope your ego... actually, I couldn't fucking care less about your ego.

Yara: Multi-tracls are the best way to get to a plausible final number. You don't even need to be a professional musician to identify or at least make an estimate of how many voices appear on certain bit. Then it's a matter of addition and substraction (since some voices are copied and pasted to other tracks in order to facilitate the mixing process) and voila.

Rhyekin's post, interesting as it is, shows that you can back up virtually any figure by simply counting differently, or changing/expanding the meaning of '180 voices' (or whatever).

[QUOTE]

[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]

Yara: Multi-tracls are the best way to get to a plausible final number. You don't even need to be a professional musician to identify or at least make an estimate of how many voices appear on certain bit. Then it's a matter of addition and substraction (since some voices are copied and pasted to other tracks in order to facilitate the mixing process) and voila.

Rhyekin's post, interesting as it is, shows that you can back up virtually any figure by simply counting differently, or changing/expanding the meaning of '180 voices' (or whatever).

[/QUOTE]
Thanks a million. That's the kind of info I was after. Now my doubts are gone.

Many thanks and congrats for the thread!

To those who do not know the absolute facts, please start your threads with 'In my opinion....' ... for some reason some people on here think you are some sort of authority on the subject but all you know is what you hear... no more than anyone else... your assumptions, and thats all they are, are often wrong. And its offensive.

Thats to those who think they are something they are not....

[QUOTE]

Thats to those who think they are something they are not....

[/QUOTE]
Like you.

Again, based on what you wrote earlier (about [i]The Hitman[/i]), you think (oh yeah: that's another bit of speculation, on YOUR side) that if you haven't read a person saying something, it means no one has EVER said it.

If somebody thinks I'm an authority, it's their problem, not yours. Why are you so jealous?

And of course, my assumptions can be wrong (and often are). Have I EVER said otherwise? Oh yeah.... you're the one who knows everything, of course...

And no: I'm not gonna start off every single sentence with IMO..., so if you're too bothered about it, then you can simply refrain from reading anything I ever write. We'll both be better off that way.

I can count on one hand the number of people on this forum who are actual authorities on Queen lore, while everyone else are fans with varying degrees of knowledge. Asking people to preface their statements with "In my opinion..." is a redundant.

Besides, even if someone IS an "expert (by Forum standards)," unless you're Brian, Roger, John, or someone who has worked closely with them (David Richards, Mike Moran, Spike Edney, Paul Rodgers, etc.), anything said here is subject to critique.

It's up to the less-informed readers/posters to learn how to discern accurate information through proper research (such as cross-referencing verifiable facts). This is a Forum, a place of open discussion. The citing of facts is done to support a position or argument. Other than those cited facts *it's all opinion in here!* Anyone who goes around saying, "It's true! I read it on the Serious Discussion Forum on Queenzone!" deserves to live is misguided ignorance.

Update: Here, Dr May says it's 150 voices: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX1lZ5OpRk4

I always thought the numbers meant something like "hell of a lot"

[QUOTE]













[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]







Update: Here, Dr May says it's 150 voices:[url=http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=sX1lZ5OpRk4%5B/url%5B/url] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX1lZ5OpRk4[/url]





[/QUOTE]
Rhyeking illustrates above that there are over 150 voices.  So what exactly are you trying to point out?

I'm trying to point out that there's another number in the legend. So far we've got:

138 (said by RT on BBC)
150 (said by BM on the linked interview)
160 to 200 (said by FM on BBC)
180 (said by RTB for the Rockfield book)

> I always thought the numbers meant something like "hell of a lot"

And they do. The problem is when people take that literally.

[QUOTE]The problem is when people take that literally.[/QUOTE]
Why exactly is that a problem?

The fact that there are different accounts of it merely indicates that they didn't count the voices themselves.  Any of those numbers is a close enough estimate.

Why should this merit so much attention?  At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that there were a lot of voices, and that it was a great, groundbreaking song.  That's really all that matters.

[QUOTE][b]Mr Mercury wrote[/b]:
[QUOTE][b]mooghead wrote[/b]:
"why they couldnt (or didnt want to) do the opera part live on stage."

One of the most intelligent things Queen ever did was not be tempted to do this on stage. It would have sounded utter shit. Talk about pissing on a picasso.... even if its picasso doing the pissing.. [/QUOTE]
Now that I definetely dont disagree with you. I once heard an act where I used to work years ago do that section of Bo Rhap live and it was piss. And you are right, for Queen to attempt this part live would have been folly in my opinion too.[/QUOTE]

They played the opera section live at the Queen's Jubilee concert in 2002 with the cast  WWRY musical. Was anyone there to tell how that performance was?

[QUOTE]

[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]The problem is when people take that literally.[/QUOTE]
Why exactly is that a problem?

The fact that there are different accounts of it merely indicates that they didn't count the voices themselves.  Any of those numbers is a close enough estimate.

Why should this merit so much attention?  At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that there were a lot of voices, and that it was a great, groundbreaking song.  That's really all that matters.
[/QUOTE]
Why exactly is it a problem whether it's or not a problem to me?

The fact that there have been many instances of me complaining about that merely indicates that I care about that topic. Anybody who also cares can contribute, anybody who doesn't can skip those threads.

Why should whether it merits or not so much attention, merit so much attention? At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that some people care about the amount of voices, some don't. That's really all that matters.

I was always under the impression they were referring to the number of vocal overdubs, not voices at one time.

That's what I figure - and the numbers do work to be roughly in that league if you make the odd assumption about how many tracks are in that bit.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]What I want to know is where did the myth start that Brian et al meant 180 "simultaneous" voices?  Where does this assumption come from?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]

[b]ParisNair wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE][b]Mr Mercury wrote[/b]:
[QUOTE][b]mooghead wrote[/b]:
"why they couldnt (or didnt want to) do the opera part live on stage."

One of the most intelligent things Queen ever did was not be tempted to do this on stage. It would have sounded utter shit. Talk about pissing on a picasso.... even if its picasso doing the pissing.. [/QUOTE]
Now that I definetely dont disagree with you. I once heard an act where I used to work years ago do that section of Bo Rhap live and it was piss. And you are right, for Queen to attempt this part live would have been folly in my opinion too.[/QUOTE]

They played the opera section live at the Queen's Jubilee concert in 2002 with the cast  WWRY musical. Was anyone there to tell how that performance was?




[/QUOTE]
It was pretty shoddy. Their choice for Freddie's parts was poor as well.