Body language versus Bohemian Rhapsody

Bo Rhap only has 2 good bits in it.....

The first good bit is just before it starts...

And second good bit is just after it ends....

The bit inbetween is rotten, especially that horrid "opera" bit.........


:)

I just got done listening to Body Language for the 20th time today! I cannot believe how GREAT the song is! It's definitely a top 5 Queen tune!

[QUOTE]





[b]buffypython wrote: [/b]



"Bohemian rhapsody is so tasteless and kitch, and musically empty. The harmonies were computerized, and the song is basically built on 6 minutes bass- and drum loops."

Please, PLEASE tell me you're being sarcastic. I think I'm witnessing madness and delusion on every scale in this forum. I hope Brian, Roger, & Deaky never chance upon this site and think all their fans are babbling, bored morons.





[/QUOTE]

Ok, that was great.... you are either an oscar winner or a fish that loves getting wound in... really not sure.

Nothing wrong with liking body lanuage....i could name 5 songs easily that I Dislike more.....More of that Jazz, Fun it,  put out the fire,  tear it up,  don't lose your head, party, and so on.  It's just another song to me, not a favorite of mine, but not my least favorite either.

Body Language is epic!

Body Language could fit into the middle of Bo Rap, as a kind of dream/nightmare sequence in which Fred goes to Hell, has his sense of taste removed by Beelzebub, and is sent back to Earth to spew out crap disco music.

[QUOTE]

[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]

Body Language could fit into the middle of Bo Rap, as a kind of dream/nightmare sequence in which Fred goes to Hell, has his sense of taste removed by Beelzebub, and is sent back to Earth to spew out crap disco music. [/QUOTE]
LMFAO! Excellent story-line! It should hit the top of the charts!

At least the man alway's tried new things....unlike brian and roger since his death.   Queen tried (especially freddie) new things right from the start with my fairy king, continued that trend throughout their career.   it's only natural they were gonna fall on their face eventually.   They went too far with hot space.

[QUOTE]

[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]

At least the man alway's tried new things....unlike brian and roger since his death.   Queen tried (especially freddie) new things right from the start with my fairy king, continued that trend throughout their career.   it's only natural they were gonna fall on their face eventually.   They went too far with hot space.  [/QUOTE]
Hot Space proved that Queen had balls to COMPLETELY turn their style around!

Sexy..... SEXY BODYYYYYYYYYY!!!!
Oh my god, so unexpected, so brilliant!
Being a new queen fan, i recently read somewhere that "crazy little things" had been written by Freddie Mercury, and relatively quickly in his bad. Well, my theory is that snippets of body language were written when he got out of his bad and admired himself in the mirror.
What do you think guys?

Let me get this right..... Bo Rap is rubbish and Body Language is ace.  So how come Bo Rap spent weeeeeeeeeeeks in in the charts, sold loooooooads of copies, is at the top of many lists of "best..." whatever,  whereas, most people have never heard of Body Language who aren't Queen fans.?
I'm not saying you're wrong, there's no accounting for what anyone likes or dislikes.  I really like Delilah and Hot Space.
Body Language just doesn't do anything for me.
Sorry!

You should never forget that Queen were linked to the time, in which they were active.
When they started it was the age of multitracking. Up to the late 60s four track recording still was the standard. And suddenly they had 16 track...24...48.... And that lead to all those bombastic arrangements.
Other bands of that time were doing similar things like 10cc, who had more than 250 voices on "I'm not in love". 

Synthesizers were already available but very unreliable, especially on stage. This changed with the 80s and as multitracking had lost it's attraction Queen went on with the new technology - as they did before.
And when finally the computerised drums had reached a certain standard Roger Taylor even stopped drumming on the records.
With the 90s this developement somehow has ended. It seems that the sound of Rock Music is explored. 
And so it's little surprise that the remaining Queen members couldn't try new things or sounds.

I remember starting a thread about how March Of The Black Queen was the band's real masterpiece - well, blow me, I was wrong!  It really, truly, is Body Language.  Thanks ever so much for pointing it out to me, Gregory.  What a real eye-opener.....I mean, it's been staring me in the face since 1982!  Fuck Bo Rhap and the 70s stuff - I'm all for the gay disco bit.  In fact, I listened to BL earlier and got so excited, a little bit of pee came out.  Wow, this really is a refreshing, enlightening conversation.  Why haven't we all come out as Body Language fans before?  Can't wait for the Hot Space demos boxset from the archives!!!!  Sexeee Bodyyyyyyeee....

> So how come Bo Rap spent weeeeeeeeeeeks in in the charts, sold loooooooads of copies, is at the top of many lists of "best..." whatever,  whereas, most people have never heard of Body Language who aren't Queen fans.?

First of all, loads of people have heard of 'Body Language' without being Queen fans, and without even knowing it's a Queen song. Second of all, spending weeks in the charts and selling loads of copies isn't necessarily related to quality. Both 'Somebody to Love' and 'We Are the Champions' failed to be #1 in the British charts, but 'Ketchup Song (Asereje)' did get to the top. Does it mean it's a better song than both of them?

> And suddenly they had 16 track...24...48..

Technically, 48 was very rarely (if ever) used back then.

> .. And that lead to all those bombastic arrangements.

No, it didn't. Bombastic arrangements had existed long before and would exist long after.

> Other bands of that time were doing similar things like 10cc, who had more than 250 voices on "I'm not in love". 

I think that's a gross exaggeration. It did have more voices than 'Bo Rhap' though.

> Synthesizers were already available but very unreliable, especially on stage.

No they weren't (unreliable, that is). No wonder why several acts used them a lot both in the studio and on stage.

> This changed with the 80s and as multitracking had lost it's attraction Queen went on with the new technology - as they did before.

They still used multi-tracking, multi-tracking never lost its attraction and Queen were actually, with some exceptions, a little behind with the new technology.

> And when finally the computerised drums had reached a certain standard Roger Taylor even stopped drumming on the records.

Totally false statement.

[QUOTE]

[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]


> Other bands of that time were doing similar things like 10cc, who had more than 250 voices on "I'm not in love". 

I think that's a gross exaggeration. It did have more voices than 'Bo Rhap' though.

> Synthesizers were already available but very unreliable, especially on stage.

No they weren't (unreliable, that is). No wonder why several acts used them a lot both in the studio and on stage.

> This changed with the 80s and as multitracking had lost it's attraction Queen went on with the new technology - as they did before.

They still used multi-tracking, multi-tracking never lost its attraction and Queen were actually, with some exceptions, a little behind with the new technology.

> And when finally the computerised drums had reached a certain standard Roger Taylor even stopped drumming on the records.

Totally false statement.
[/QUOTE]
Ah.."Mr Everybody else is wrong" again...

Precisely you hear more than 250 voices on "I'm not in Love". Listen to the BBC radio series "The producers" about 10cc, where they tell how they made it and even play excerpts from the multitrack. So they should know what they have done. 

And yes, the early valve driven synthesizers were unreliable on stage and easily went out of tune. Ask bands from those days if you ever have the chance. And if not try finding the book "Are you ready Steve" by Steve Priest where he writes about their nightmares on stage when the synth ruined most versions of their 75 hit "Fox on the run". 

From "Hot Space" onwards there is a lot of computerised drumming on the Queen records with "Gaga" and "Days of our lives" being the most obvious examples. Others feature basic programming with some live drums overdubbed. And yes, there were still some real drums on some 80s tracks. Wasn't it you Mr Sebastian who recently tried to give me a lesson that everything is to be taken literally? 
 
Can we agree on something,  Mr Sebastian ? We obviously have a different perspective on music and will probably never agree.
We should not bore the other people on this board with this. So please ignore my "totally false statements" while I let you enjoy your unlimited knowledge..;-)