Totally false statement. I've never claimed everybody else is wrong.
> Precisely you hear more than 250 voices on "I'm not in Love".
That's one of those fake legends. There are indeed loads of voices, more so than in 'Bohemian Rhapsody', but not 256.
> Listen to the BBC radio series "The producers" about 10cc
Many producers are liable to exaggerate things. Or they use a figure of speech. By the way, when John Deacon said they gave John Anthony the elbow he didn't mean they presented him with a joint between the forearm and the upper arm; when Freddie said he dressed to kill he didn't mean he was a murderer (unless he was naked), and when he said 'Bo Rhap' took him bloody ages he didn't mean he reincarnated several times, always covered in vital fluid, while writing it.
> So they should know what they have done.
They use a figure of speech. By the way, when John Deacon said they gave John Anthony the elbow he didn't mean they presented him with a joint between the forearm and the upper arm; when Freddie said he dressed to kill he didn't mean he was a murderer (unless he was naked), and when he said 'Bo Rhap' took him bloody ages he didn't mean he reincarnated several times, always covered in vital fluid, while writing it.
> And yes, the early valve driven synthesizers were unreliable on stage and easily went out of tune.
Some of them, not all of them.
> 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".
Though I'm not sure about it, I think they used an ARP Odyssey for that one. To get that sound they needed to set the filter on low-frequency oscillation, or maybe two oscillations (for the parallel octaves). That's like playing guitar with extra super light string while having loads of temperature changes and strumming it raucously or virtually 'abusing' in the strokes a la Jonny Greenwood. The Odyssey was still relatively new and it wouldn't take that sort of overload, but it doesn't mean all synths were unreliable. The total area of the Maldives is way smaller than many cities... does it mean all countries in Asia are microstates?
> From "Hot Space" onwards there is a lot of computerised drumming on the Queen records
A lot yes. 'Roger Taylor even stopped drumming on the records' - totally false statement.
> Others feature basic programming with some live drums overdubbed.
Indeed. But more often than not, drums were played live by Roger on acoustic kits.
> And yes, there were still some real drums on some 80s tracks.
Not some, but most. Electronic drums, synth-generated drums, drum computers and MIDI drums were used but still a minority.
> Wasn't it you Mr Sebastian who recently tried to give me a lesson that everything is to be taken literally?
Not quite. There are several different cases. Something like 'haven't spoken to you for like a hundred years' is obviously a figure of speech. Something like '[i]Hot Space[/i] was released in 1960' is a mistake, simple as that (unless of course you use a different calendar where 0 began 22 years after what's usually regarded, etc).
> Can we agree on something, Mr Sebastian ? We obviously have a different perspective on music and will probably never agree.
Sure, but 'probably never [agreeing]' doesn't mean we can't post comments. There's nothing wrong with not agreeing. There is, however, a lot wrong with using personal attacks (such as your sarcastic remarks when I've never attacked you personally). Some things do rely on perspectives (such as whether [i]Hot Space[/i] is a good album or not), others are indeed black or white (such as whether [i]Hot Space[/i] was released before or after [i]The Game[/i]).
> We should not bore the other people on this board with this.
The only thing we should not do is insulting other people (like your 'Mr Everybody Else Is Wrong' comment).
> So please ignore my "totally false statements" while I let you enjoy your unlimited knowledge..;-)
My knowledge is very, very limited. I reckon over 99.99999999999999999% of the things that can be known are completely oblivious to me. But part of the remaining 0.00000000000000001% includes the following things:
- Queen did use drum computers, MIDI drums, synth-generated drums and electronic drums, but those were still a minority. More often than not, it was Roger on acoustic kits.
- Not all early synths were unrealiable. There are many variables involved.
- Many things are up to opinion, others aren't. For instance, it's an opinion (and totally valid) to think [i]The Works[/i] is a good album, or a bad album, whatever. But it's not up to personal opinion whether [i]The Works[/i] was recorded in Japan or not. It wasn't, full stop.
Gregoryvincke · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Thistleboy 1980 wrote: [/b]
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....[/QUOTE]
Dear Thistleboy.
You really moved me the way you described your penis incedent. The same thing is regularly happening to me when I listen to it, but I have always been too embarassed to talk about it with anyone. You are so brave to expose your little weakness.
You are a true and sincere Body Language fan, and you deserve my utter respect. This is why Freddie wrote this masterpiece, this is what he wanted. Freddie would have been so proud of you if he had not been retired.
As Freddie said :
"Yeah sexy body sexy sexy body
I want your body
Baby you're hot"
Amen
MisterCosmicc · Member since
Ymmm
OhioMustapha · Member since
that picture is creepy
Sheer Brass Neck · Member since
Seb, you say there is no way that there were 180 voices (or tracks) on Bohemian Rhapsody. Or 256 voices on I'm not in love by 10cc. So are the 10cc guys full of shit or not good at math when stating this:
"Each note of a chromatic scale was sung 16 times, so we got 16 tracks of three people singing for each note. That was Kevin, Lol and GiGi standing around a valve Neumann U67 in the studio, singing 'Aahhh' for around three weeks. I'm telling you; three bloody weeks. We eventually had 48 voices for each note of the chromatic scale, and since there are 13 notes in the chromatic scale, this made a total of 624 voices. My next problem was how to get all that into the track."
Vocal harmony · Member since
I commented on the other thread about there being 180 voices on Bo Rhap. I thought I had come across a logical way to explain how there could be 108 different vocal tracks (not 180) but Seb seemed to brush this aside.
Through the years I've read a few 10cc related interviews with regard to their writing and production and can find no reason why Queen wouldn't have taken a similar path.
I guess we'll never know for sure, but even if Brian May or Roy Thomas Baker sat down and explained the construction of every line there would still be people on here claiming that it wasn't done that way.
Sheer Brass Neck · Member since
^^^
Agree 100%. I don't know the answer, and maybe 634 or 180 voices are inflated, but given the math provided I could see how the artists believe their numbers. Using the example from the Ian Hunter discussion where Queen provided 27 voices, that was for one section of simple three part harmonies.
In Bohemian Rhapsody, the "very, very frightening me" section is 5 part harmony. Each line sung 3 times is 15 "voices". "Beelzebub has a devil put aside" has six voices or lines. Tracked 3 times is 18 "voices", so those two sections are 33 alone. We'll never have an answer and part of it is band hype but I'm interested in the process so I don't dismiss the 180 the way others do, while acknowledging my knowledge is limited compared to some.
Sebastian · Member since
Brian has explained how those voices were done, and that explanation leaves little doubt there were not 180 of them.
'Beelzebub' is six-part, but the top one is just Roger and he's single-tracked (hence: one voice, not nine), the bottom one is just Frederick (multi-tracks confirm so). So, six parts don't add up to 54 voices in that case, they add up to 40, and that's still way closer to zero than to 180.
Frederick said they'd been trying to create a 160- to 200-piece choir EFFECT, some journalist took it to heart, averaged them at 180 (160 + 200, and then divided by two) and a legend was born. It was that simple.
When people say 'Betty White is a like a million years old', you understand it's a hyperbole and leave it at that. There's no need to try to rationalise it as 'well, maybe they mean a million years on a planet which takes a leap around its nearest star in less time'. There's no need to try to justify it as 'well, perhaps she was alive in the year 997,982 BCE'. It's an inflated figure to mean 'she's very old'. That's it. Her actual age, according to Wikipedia, is 96. Not a million - 96.
PS: According to what Ian said, the number of voices provided by Queen members on 'You Nearly Did Me in' would be 21, not 27 (Roger did the top part alone). That contradicts the comment by the other live witness... but either way, 21 and 27 are both far from 180.
Sheer Brass Neck · Member since
^^^
Sure, and not here to argue but you said maybe 29 voices on BR. Not 180, but 29. How can you so sure when Brian describes the sessions as such around 13 minute mark?:
I'm willing to accept a figure between 25-ish and 40-ish. Not 134, not 150, not 160, not 180 and not 200.
Same as I understand people saying 'Brazil have won a gazillion World Cups' doesn't really mean 'a gazillion' (which is indeterminate to begin with) but merely 'five' (which is still a lot).
Same as, when Frederick said 'I dress to kill', he (hopefully) didn't actually confess to murder or manslaughter. Same as, when someone says they worked their arse off I know they (hopefully) don't literally mean they've got no backside anymore.
Sheer Brass Neck · Member since
But you're very factual, Seb, so why do accept between 25 and 40 wish, but not 41+? You are confusing figures of speech (a "gazillion" World Cups, i "dress to kill") with what could be a quantifiable number. Albeit a number you don't believe based on methodology. If the two sections I've alluded to have 33 "voices", what about the other sections with multi tracked vocals. Do they add up to 7 to give the track 40 "voices", or do the combines sections 3 voices times 3 overdubs times the sections required equal 180? I honestly don't know, but in fairness no one else does and all of us are guessing. Using 10cc math as listed above, you could make a case that 634 vocal lines or "voices" were recorded. Or not :)
Invisible Woman · Member since
Completely different musical styles, I don't think compare these two songs. I like that they had so many different styles throughout their career.
Vocal harmony · Member since
Invisible Woman, yes they were different styles of music, but both Queen and 10cc featured a lot of multi tracked vocal sections in many of their 70's period songs, the recording process for both bands became a major part of what they did to achieve a signature sound.
Sebastian · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote:[/b]
But you're very factual, Seb, so why do accept between 25 and 40 wish, but not 41+?[/QUOTE]
40-ish does include 41+.
[QUOTE] [b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote:[/b]
You are confusing figures of speech (a "gazillion" World Cups, i "dress to kill") with what could be a quantifiable number.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm not - the thousands of people who believe the 180 figure are.
[QUOTE] [b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote:[/b]
If the two sections I've alluded to have 33 "voices", what about the other sections with multi tracked vocals.[/QUOTE]
They can also have 20-40ish voices.
[QUOTE] [b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote:[/b]
or do the combines sections 3 voices times 3 overdubs times the sections required equal 180? [/QUOTE]
Again: Frederick said they were trying to re-create a 160- to 200-piece choir effect. That doesn't mean 10 people singing 'thunderbolt and lightning' and then 10 other people singing 'very very frightening me', etc. That means they were trying to sound as a choir which had 160-200 members.
You can, of course, try and justify it anyway you want ('maybe Frederick did dress to kill and we just never found out ... maybe five World Cups is a gazillion if we count them differently').
[QUOTE] [b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote:[/b]
Using 10cc math as listed above, you could make a case that 634 vocal lines or "voices" were recorded. Or not :)[/QUOTE]
'Not' is by far more feasible.
Thistle · Member since
It's all bullshit. No matter how many times a voice is replicated, it's the same voice. Ergo...there are only a few voices on Bo Rhap, and they belong to the members of Queen. I don't give a flying feck about jargon used when recording - it's still just the same 3 or 4 voices. Does that settle the debate?
