That statement speaks more about you than about me. Maybe the one who doesn't want to understand is not me.
> Between Les Paul and Brian May you won't find famous people in rock-music who multitracked one instrument dozens of times. And Les Paul also did the same treatment to Mary Fords voice.
Actually, Brian rarely multitracked one instrument dozens of times. More often than not it was three or four times. Which had been done in the 60's.
> but one singer building a complete choir was a thing of the 70s.
Paul built a complete choir in 'Wild Honey Pie'. By the way 'Bo Rhap' has three singers building a complete choir, which made the process three times easier.
> You could not have done "Bohemian Rhapsody" or 10cc's "I'm not in love" in the 60s with four track. Impossible!
Of course it's not impossible. It would've taken a lot more effort, bouncing, the sound quality would've been vastly inferior because of the multiple-generation recordings. But it wouldn't have been impossible.
[/QUOTE]
Too funny, "Wild Honey Pie" is 53 seconds of studio fun. And for a single musician it's quite easy to build up such a recording on 4-track and have maybe four voices along with two acoustic guitars.
On Bohemian Rhapsody even the piano has two tracks, the bass has three tracks...the drums four... and so on.
10 cc recorded 16 different vocal notes on a 16 track and created chords with the mixing console. They turned the multitrack machine into an instrument. I would love to watch you doing this on a 4 track machine. (yes I know...of course they could have done it with a mellotron in the 60s...)
And what you don't want to understand is that we are talking here about multitracking as an artform. Sure, every recording uses multitracking to have better mixing options.
Multitracking as an artform is a thing of the 70s and cannot be reproduced live on stage. Brian May could never play "Procession"...they could never do "March of the Black Queen", they could never play the complete "Bohemian Rhapsody" live. They could never play "Killer Queen"...."Bicycle Race". The list is endless....
Somehow I begin to forget what this discussion was all about. The only thing I notice is that your main concern is, that you are right and everybody else is wrong.
Sebastian · Member since
> To you, the storyline seems to ring true
Er... no: read what I wrote
'Is it fiction? Of course it is '
'Is it based on a true story? No'
> Too funny, "Wild Honey Pie" is 53 seconds of studio fun. And for a single musician it's quite easy to build up such a recording on 4-track and have maybe four voices along with two acoustic guitars.
Bottomline: it's got multitracking.
> On Bohemian Rhapsody even the piano has two tracks, the bass has three tracks...the drums four... and so on.
Which is great, but not new.
> I would love to watch you doing this on a 4 track machine. (yes I know...of course they could have done it with a mellotron in the 60s...)
They could've done it by having four 4-track tape-recorders and then using them simultaneously. It would have taken them a lot more work, the result would've been a lot less spectacular (in terms of sound quality), it would've cost them a lot more money, but it would have been possible, which is my point all in all.
> And what you don't want to understand is that we are talking here about multitracking as an artform. Sure, every recording uses multitracking to have better mixing options.
Which is also an art form. As a matter of fact, I think (though I'm not sure yet [i]Hot Space[/i] has more multi-tracking than [i]News of the World[/i].
> Multitracking as an artform is a thing of the 70s and cannot be reproduced live on stage.
Multi-tracking from the 60's, 80's, 90's, 00's or 10's also cannot be reproduced live on stage.
> Brian May could never play "Procession"...they could never do "March of the Black Queen", they could never play the complete "Bohemian Rhapsody" live. They could never play "Killer Queen"...."Bicycle Race". The list is endless....
Actually, they could. In stripped form of course, but they could.
> The only thing I notice is that your main concern is, that you are right and everybody else is wrong.
Which means you didn't notice anything, as I've got absolutely no concern in everybody else being wrong. And by the way, why are you including 'everybody else' when I direct my reply to you and not the remaining 6.8 billions that are included in 'everybody else'. That suggests that there IS a person here who doesn't want to understand, but it's not me.
I've been wrong many many many times, and if this is one of them and you can prove it, I'll be happy to stand corrected. However, it's completely childish and silly to come up with personal attacks (such as 'Mr Everybody Else Is Wrong', totally uncalled for as I've never attacked you personally) or speculations about how I think or what my main concern is (again, totally uncalled for as I've never speculated what your concerns are, and I deserve the favour to be returned).
My points are, all in all, that several things we seem to take for granted about [i]Hot Space[/i] may not be entirely like that (which also happens a lot with loads of people in loads of fields and is of course not restricted to music or an album by a rock band), including:
- The power-distribution, so to speak: many people seem convinced that John was a main force behind this album, when in fact he wasn't, and in the very occasional instances he's been vocal about the band, he's mentioned [i]Hot Space[/i] as the low point in their career. The fact is, both Brian and Roger are much more to either thank or blame for [i]Hot Space[/i] than John is, and of course Freddie as well. It doesn't mean John was forced to play on it, it simply means that it wasn't dominated by him (on the contrary, [i]Flash Gordon[/i] was dominated by Brian in terms of how it ended up and which parts were and weren't included).
- Your initial remark about 'Looking back "Hot Space" has too little of Brian May on the songs' is wrong, as he participated in all of them except one. On 'Staying Power' he plays guitar (a very nice and underrated part), on 'Dancer' he plays guitar (multi-tracked, by the way) and synthesisers and he's probably the one who programmed the drum computer in the intro; on 'Back Chat' he adds some power chords and plays a long solo; on 'Action This Day' he plays rhythm; on 'Put Out the Fire' he plays rhythm (multi-tracked), lead (with one fantastic solo) and sings some interesting backing vocals; on 'Life Is Real' he plays acoustic and electric; on 'Calling All Girls' he also plays guitar (acoustic and electric), while on 'Under Pressure' he had a major role in the arrangements, not to mention his unforgettable work on twelve-string; on 'Las Palabras de Amor' he plays piano [i]and[/i] acoustic [i]and [/i]electric [i]and[/i] synthesisers (multi-tracked) [i]and [/i]he sings loads of backing vocals (e.g. 'this night and evermore' is him doing alto, tenor and baritone, without the others and yes, again, he's multi-tracked). Only 'Cool Cat' (where he doesn't appear) and 'Body Language' (where he plays for about three seconds) actually have 'too little of Brian May'. But the remaining 83.33% of the album has Brian taking a very important role. Which means your comment is wrong. Does it make you a bad person? Of course not. Does it make you inferior? Of course not. Does it make everybody else wrong? Of course not. But it's indeed one of those points people (me included, before I realised my mistake) tend to assume about [i]Hot Space[/i] when they're really not true.
- Same for your other comment 'Roger Taylors drums were replaced by a computer', which is only true for a minority of tracks. The first five songs in the album combine both approaches (computers and Rog playing on either acoustic or electronic drums) but 'Fire', 'Palabras', 'Calling', 'Pressure', 'Life Is Real' and 'Cool Cat' are entirely acoustic, rendering over half of the abum having Roger Taylor's drums NOT being replaced by a computer. Again: it means your comment is wrong. Does it make you a bad person? Of course not. Does it make you inferior? Of course not. Does it make everybody else wrong? Of course not. But it's indeed one of those points people (me included, before I realised my mistake) tend to assume about [i]Hot Space[/i] when they're really not true.
The_CrY · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
Only 'Cool Cat' (where he doesn't appear) and 'Body Language' (where he plays for about three seconds) actually have 'too little of Brian May'.
[/QUOTE] Are sure there's no Brian in Cool Cat? Who plays that laid back rhythm guitar in the intro then?
Sebastian · Member since
John Deacon. John played a lot of electric rhythm.
Amazon · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]rhyeking wrote: [/b]
"Stepping Out" by Joe Jackson is a good song. I especially like the piano. Before someone brought it up here, I never considered any similarities between "Windows" and "Stepping Out". Frankly, I still don't see any similarities beyond the superficial use of instruments. It's the same with people saying "The Invisible Man" sounds like Ray Parker, Jr.'s "Ghostbusters," which other people say sounds like "I Want A New Drug" by Huey Lewis And The News.
[/QUOTE]
To be fair, The Invisible Man does IMO sound like a copy of Ghostbusters. It's a fun song, and I like the mention of the members' names, but it sounds like a rip-off of Ghostbusters.
[b]GratefulFan wrote: "We can agree to disagree about 'Steppin Out'(superior) and 'Pressure' (brilliant). :)
Of the songs you listed there's not one I would take to someone unfamiliar to try and get them inspired to embrace Queen as among the very best of the best. With the slim possibility of exception for Break Free and Breakthru, if we could watch the videos too." [/b]
Fair enought. IMO most of the very best Queen songs were from the 70's (or up until 1980), as opposed to the 80's (83-89), however I do think that from 82-89, Queen released some terrific songs, so for me they didn't become average during that era.
Amazon · Member since
Sebastian wrote: " "Again, by what standard? I know you're above such a simple, glib assessment. Make me see your point of view."
"Songwriting's sub-par, sounds are dated, Hammer to Fall (wonderful song, great vocals [especially Brian's harmonies], awful recording in terms of instruments), Ga Ga is way too robotic, Machines (great song and very underrated) has very little imagination in the arrangement, Freddie's voice (brilliant as it is) is his least-good in the 1984-1986 period (i.e. it's excellent, but not as excellent as before or after). So, by Queen standards, it's not a great album. All of that IMO of course, since there are subjective factors that cannot be measured (e.g. if you proposed to your wife while listening to Break Free [though that would send mixed signals], then it's probably gonna be the best song ever for you)." The problem with this is that everything you said is pretty much subjective. The songwriting's sub-par? Under what criteria? Hammer to Fall is awfully recorded in terms of instruments? Under what criteria? Freddie's voice was his least-good during that period? Under what criteria?
Personally, I do regard Break Free to be a great song, and it's not because I proposed to my wife while listening to it or anything like that. :D I regard to be one of the purest examples in the past 20 years of a pop song.
Additonally many of the other things that you mention on this thread are not objectively bad, they just are. Utilising unadventurous bass-lines, or making a song extremely robotic does not automatically mean that these songs are sub-par. Afterall, others might take these things as evidence of why they do consider these songs to be great.
Finally, you talk about skill; music is more than about skill. Ultimately it is about the satisfaction that one derives from listening to it. How much skill went into it does not necessarily determine how good a song it is. However, that said, I don't think that your analogy of Dorris Lessing writing 'hey hi wazzup' really works. Much more skill went into making these songs than would in go towards Lessing writing 'hey hi wazzup.' In fact, one could contrast it to Martin Scorsese. In 1990, he made Goodfellas. In 1991, he made Cape Fear, which requred less skill, but is still a highly impressive film. Scorsese had the capability to make a more ambitious film than Cape Fear; the fact that he didn't doesn't lessen Cape Fear.
One last comment:
"Things in Hot Space or The Works, OTOH, were photocopies what other people (including themselves) had
done. And photocopies are hardly ever as good as the originals." Here it is debatable. I'm not convinced, for example, that KPTOW was a photocopy of Stepping Out.
August R. · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
They could've done it by having four 4-track tape-recorders and then using them simultaneously. It would have taken them a lot more work, the result would've been a lot less spectacular (in terms of sound quality), it would've cost them a lot more money, but it would have been possible, which is my point all in all.
[/QUOTE]
Interestin discussion.. here's my two cents: While it would have been technically possible, would it have been financially wise? And wold the work load have become unreasonable compared to the quality of final product? I mean, they already put a lot of time and effort into albums like Opera. And that album became (reportedly) the most expensive album at that time. My point is: while it would have been technically possible to record an album like Opera in the mid-60's, with that technology they would have come up with more reasonable solutions to record the things they wanted (like using a real choir instead of multi tracking 3 voices over and over again).
Sebastian · Member since
> The problem with this is that everything you said is pretty much subjective.
If you cared to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), I said 'All of that IMO of course.'
> Additonally many of the other things that you mention on this thread are not objectively bad, they just are.
Of course. If you cared to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), I said 'All of that IMO of course.'
> Utilising unadventurous bass-lines, or making a song extremely robotic does not automatically mean that these songs are sub-par.
Of course. If you cared to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), I said 'All of that IMO of course.'
> Afterall, others might take these things as evidence of why they do consider these songs to be great.
Of course. If you cared to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), I said 'All of that IMO of course.'
> Finally, you talk about skill; music is more than about skill.
Of course. If you cared to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), I said 'All of that IMO of course.'
> Ultimately it is about the satisfaction that one derives from listening to it. How much skill went into it does not necessarily determine how good a song it is.
Actually, it IS a factor. Roger's outstanding soprano Bb on 'Bohemian Rhapsody' is one of the things that make it so great. Had it been an octave lower (that note, not the entire choir), it would've been less great. Same if Brian's solo were a lousy 'even rookies could play it' thing, or if the vocals were sung by the bloke in the Ramones. Same if the producers and engineers weren't skilful enough to make a good mix and the song ended up barely audible. Skills aren't the only factor but they are a factor. All of that IMO of course.
> However, that said, I don't think that your analogy of Dorris Lessing writing 'hey hi wazzup' really works. Much more skill went into making these songs than would in go towards Lessing writing 'hey hi wazzup.'
IMO of course, Brian could've played the 'Dancer' solo in his sleep. The song's good, underrated and enjoyable, but it's not Dr May at his best. That, IMO of course, is disappointing, IMO of course.
> Scorsese had the capability to make a more ambitious film than Cape Fear; the fact that he didn't doesn't lessen Cape Fear.
It's not about ambition. In music, it's not about having a song with multiple overdubs or loads of chords... in fact, part of the point I've been trying to make previously is that Hot Space does have a lot of multitracking, perhaps more so than News of the World. Again, 'Dear Friends' is a fantastic song even though it's simple. 'Staying Power' has more chords, a waaaaaay more elaborate form, requires more skills on synth than 'Dear Friends' requires on piano, but it's, IMO of course, Dorris Lessing writing 'hey hi wazzup.'
Regarding your comment about my photocopies remark, it's IMO of course, and there's nothing wrong with agreeing or disagreeing with it. IMO of course, 'Keep Passing the Open Windows' is an 80's version of 'Don't Stop Me Now', only that 'DSMN' is way better. I do like 'KPtoW' and think the middle-eight is gorgeous, but it doesn't hold a candle to 'DSMN' (all of that IMO of course). BTW, IMO of course, it's annoying to have to write 'IMO of course' in order not to be thought to be imposing my views. So, if you want, just assume the 'IMO of course' disclaimer after every single word I write.
> Interestin discussion.. here's my two cents: While it would have been technically possible, would it have been financially wise?
Indeed it wouldn't have. And I did mention that. But it would've been possible, which is my point.
> And wold the work load have become unreasonable compared to the quality of final product?
Indeed it wouldn't have. And I did mention that. But it would've been possible, which is my point.
> I mean, they already put a lot of time and effort into albums like Opera. And that album became (reportedly) the most expensive album at that time.
I highly doubt that. It was part of a marketing strategy that obviously worked. Same for the alleged 138, 150, 160, 180 or 200 vocals.
> My point is: while it would have been technically possible to record an album like Opera in the mid-60's, with that technology they would have come up with more reasonable solutions to record the things they wanted (like using a real choir instead of multi tracking 3 voices over and over again).
Indeed.
Amazon · Member since
Sebastian wrote: "> The problem with this is that everything you said is pretty much subjective.
If you cared to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), I said 'All of that IMO of course.'
> Additonally many of the other things that you mention on this thread are not objectively bad, they just are.
Of course. If you cared to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), I said 'All of that IMO of course.'
> Utilising unadventurous bass-lines, or making a song extremely
robotic does not automatically mean that these songs are sub-par.
Of course. If you cared to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), I said 'All of that IMO of course.'
> Afterall, others might take these things as evidence of why they do consider these songs to be great.
Of course. If you cared to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), I said 'All of that IMO of course.'
> Finally, you talk about skill; music is more than about skill.
Of course. If you cared to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), I said 'All of that IMO of course.' "
It' s all very well to repeat that I should have read what you wrote again and again, except you said 'All of that IMO of course, since there are subjective factors that cannot be measured (e.g. if you proposed to your wife while listening
to Break Free [though that would send mixed signals], then it's probably gonna be the best song ever for you).' The fact that you specifically refer to particular subjective factors makes it reasonable to assume that the other factors you speak of are in your view objective. Plus you do have a habbit of conflating your opinion and what you imagine to be fact. You don't just do it with me; but if you want to imagine that this particular disagreement is because I don't read your post, that's your choice.
" "Ultimately it is about the satisfaction that one derives from listening to it. How much skill went into it does not necessarily
determine how good a song it is."
"Actually, it IS a factor.
Roger's outstanding soprano Bb on 'Bohemian Rhapsody' is one of the things that make it so great. Had it been an octave lower (that note, not the entire choir), it would've been less great. Same if Brian's solo were a lousy 'even rookies could play it' thing, or if the vocals were sung by the bloke in the Ramones. Same if the producers and engineers weren't skilful enough to make a good mix and the song ended up barely audible. Skills aren't the only factor but they are a factor.
All of that IMO of course." Of course. However, I was responding to your contention that HS featured only 5% of Brian's skill. Skill is important, but it is not the only factor and it is not always the most important factor.
" "However, that said, I don't think that your analogy of Dorris Lessing writing 'hey hi wazzup' really works. Much more skill went into making these songs than would in go towards Lessing writing 'hey hi wazzup.' "
"IMO of course, [b]Brian could've played the 'Dancer' solo in his sleep[/b]. The song's good, underrated and enjoyable, but it's not Dr May at his best. That, IMO of course, is disappointing, IMO of course." This is what I'm referring to. Perhaps he could have, but this does not necessarily lessen the song (as it is, I think it's a very underrated but not great song).
" "Scorsese had the capability to make a more ambitious film than Cape Fear; the fact that he didn't doesn't lessen Cape Fear."
"It's not about ambition. In music, it's not about having a song with multiple overdubs or loads of chords... in fact, part of the point I've been trying to make previously is that Hot Space does have a lot of multitracking, perhaps more so than News of the World. Again, 'Dear Friends' is a fantastic song even though it's simple. 'Staying Power' has more chords, a waaaaaay more elaborate form, requires more skills on synth than 'Dear Friends' requires on piano, but it's, IMO of course, Dorris Lessing writing 'hey hi wazzup.' " When I refer to Scorsese's making Cape Fear, I'm referring to the fact that after Goodfellas, he made a film which required less of his skillset. Ambition is probably the wrong word. Certainly, my point was that I don't think the Lessing analogy holds up.
"BTW, IMO of course, it's annoying to have to write 'IMO of course' in order not to be thought to be imposing my views. So, if you want, just assume the 'IMO of course' disclaimer after every single word I write." Except here's the thing. Nobody is demanding that you say IMO after every sentence, but on several threads such as the guitarist thread or this, you merge objectivity and subjectivity whenever the mood takes you.
Sebastian · Member since
> The fact that you specifically refer to particular subjective factors makes it reasonable to assume that the other factors you speak of are in your view objective.
No, it doesn't. First of all. I preceded the 'Break Free' case with an 'e.g.' (thus, it wasn't the only one). Second, refering to a particular fact(or) doesn't mean everything else is on the other extreme. If I say 'Margaret Thatcher is still alive', does it mean everybody else is dead? Same here: if I say the 'Break Free'/marriage point is subjective, it doesn't mean that everything else is objective.
> Plus you do have a habbit of conflating your opinion and what you imagine to be fact.
Some things [i]are [/i]facts. [i]Hot Space[/i] was released before [i]The Miracle[/i]. That's a fact. Whether one or the other is 'better' is an opinion. And indeed things like 'better' or 'worse' ('sub-par' obviously enters this category) are subjective (including the reasons why I consider Petrucci to be 'better' than Dr May).
> but if you want to imagine that this particular disagreement is because I don't read your post, that's your choice.
It's not about not reading it, but about not understanding it.
> However, I was responding to your contention that HS featured only 5% of Brian's skill. Skill is important, but it is not the only factor and it is not always the most important factor.
I agree. However, between an album featuring 5% of Brian's skill, and one featuring 100% (or even more) of Brian's skill, the latter's already got a big advantage. If you add a better voice (all of that IMO of course), better drums (all of that IMO of course), better bass (all of that IMO of course), more piano (which isn't an IMO case as it can be measured), then you've got a(n obviously subjective) way to explain why you like (or why I like, in this case) an album more than another.
> This is what I'm referring to. Perhaps he could have, but this does not necessarily lessen the song (as it is, I think it's a very underrated but not great song).
There you have it: very underrated but not great. 'Good Company', on the other hand, is great (YMMW, of course).
> Nobody is demanding that you say IMO after every sentence, but on several threads such as the guitarist thread or this, you merge objectivity and subjectivity whenever the mood takes you.
Actually, I don't: I've always been clear that things like 'better' or 'worse' are subjective. Other things [i]are[/i] objective: Roger sings a higher note on 'Bo Rhap' than on 'Lap of the Gods', full stop. That's not a matter of opinion.
All in all, there are things about [i]Hot Space[/i] that are entirely subjective or speculative, such as: is it a good album? Does the fact it's from the 80's matter? Would we complain if they'd made [i]ANATO II[/i]? Would it have been better with Arif producing the whole thing? Does running order play a key role on the final result? Would it have sold more had it been released six months before or six months later? If you (or anybody else) says something like 'I prefer [i]Hot Space[/i] to [i]Dark Side of the Moon[/i]', there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Other people (me included) may disagree (I do), but there's no accounting for taste.
However, other things about [i]Hot Space[/i] are objective and measurable: Was it recorded before [i]The Game[/i]? Was it mastered in the States? Does Freddie play guitar in addition to keyboards? Is the 'Body Language' bass played on a synthesiser? Has it got little to no multitracking? Are the songs averagely longer? Is there a song with more chords than 'Black Queen'? For all those things, there [i]is [/i]a definitive absolute answer (sometimes harder to suss out as it requires working with different variables), which may or may not affect the subjective way each of us embraces (or decides not to embrace) the album (e.g. having more or less chords than 'Black Queen' doesn't make it better or worse). However, for any of those points, if a person says something like 'there's very little of Brian May in the songs' or 'most drums are computerised rather than Roger playing', there's absolutely nothing wrong with another person (me, in this case, but it could've been anybody else) asserting that those statements are false (indeed they are).
Soundfreak · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
> Multitracking as an artform is a thing of the 70s and cannot be reproduced live on stage.
Multi-tracking from the 60's, 80's, 90's, 00's or 10's also cannot be reproduced live on stage.
> Brian May could never play "Procession"...they could never do "March of the Black Queen", they could never play the complete "Bohemian Rhapsody" live. They could never play "Killer Queen"...."Bicycle Race". The list is endless....
Actually, they could. In stripped form of course, but they could.
[/QUOTE]
Well Mr. Sebastian, they could not. Otherwise they would have....
Their 70s trademark sound created by multitracking could never be reproduced live. Point!
You can't have 5 Freddies on stage.
So...it's hopeless....I'm speechless. And I lose interest in this fruitless discussion. And please don't accuse me of personal attacks, you obviously don't notice how you make people look like idiots when you put everything down, that doesn't fit into your world.
I'm out of this discussion.
Amazon · Member since
Sebastian, I will simply say that if you think it's about me not understanding your post, and if you think that your posts about May being a lesser guitarist than Petrucci were subjective, then we have a different view of history.
Sebastian · Member since
> Well Mr. Sebastian, they could not. Otherwise they would have....
What a ridiculous argument. Based on that, Fred couldn't have jumped a cliff otherwise he would have. Brian couldn't destroy the Red Special, otherwise he would have. Fred was physically incapable of wearing a blue t-shirt to the Wembley concert, otherwise he would have.
> Their 70s trademark sound created by multitracking could never be reproduced live. Point!
Techinically, nothing could be reproduced live as every time a person sings breaths differently, every time fingers play the piano they stress the keys differently, etc.
> You can't have 5 Freddies on stage.
No, but you can have Brian and Roger doing the missing harmonies. For a guitar choir, you could have Brian playing both parts simultaneously, or John joining with another guitar, etc. They decided not to recreate the sound of the records, and it was great since it made the whole live experience different. But it doesn't mean they couldn't have done it. The result wouldn't have been exactly the same but yes, had they wanted to, they could've gotten as close as possible.
> So...it's hopeless....I'm speechless. And I lose interest in this fruitless discussion.
It's your problem, not mine.
> And please don't accuse me of personal attacks,
I do have the right to 'accuse' you of that, as I've never attacked you personally, but you have. Totally unfair.
> you obviously don't notice how you make people look like idiots when you put everything down
I don't make anybody feel like idiot. And I don't put everything down. Again, if you say '[i]Hot Space[/i] is better than [i]The Game[/i], it's your opinion and it's neither more valid nor less valid than mine (which is the other way around). However, if you say '[i]Hot Space[/i] was released before [i]The Game[/i]', then I can tell you 'no, it wasn't' because it wasn't.
You said or implied (don't remember your exact words) Roger's drumming was largely (or chiefly) replaced by machines. Which wasn't. So I pointed it out. That doesn't make you look like an idiot, it simply corrects a mistake (and that [i]is [/i]a mistake since that [i]is [/i]a B/W situation). Same for you saying there's little of Brian May in the tracks.
> that doesn't fit into your world.
I haven't got a world, so your statement is clearly false.
> I'm out of this discussion.
It's your decision. It doesn't change the fact your drum/Brian comments were wrong and doesn't change the fact multi-tracking is not exclusive to the 70's, and it doesn't change the fact there is a lot of multitracking in [i]Hot Space[/i], and it doesn't change the fact that I haven't made personal attack against you while you have.
> Sebastian, I will simply say that if you think it's about me not understanding your post, and if you think that your posts about May being a lesser guitarist than Petrucci were subjective, then we have a different view of history.
And which view would it be?
Soundfreak · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
> Well Mr. Sebastian, they could not. Otherwise they would have....
What a ridiculous argument. Based on that, Fred couldn't have jumped a cliff otherwise he would have. Brian couldn't destroy the Red Special, otherwise he would have. Fred was physically incapable of wearing a blue t-shirt to the Wembley concert, otherwise he would have.
> Their 70s trademark sound created by multitracking could never be reproduced live. Point!
Techinically, nothing could be reproduced live as every time a person sings breaths differently, every time fingers play the piano they stress the keys differently, etc.
> You can't have 5 Freddies on stage.
No, but you can have Brian and Roger doing the missing harmonies. For a guitar choir, you could have Brian playing both parts simultaneously, or John joining with another guitar, etc. They decided not to recreate the sound of the records, and it was great since it made the whole live experience different. But it doesn't mean they couldn't have done it. The result wouldn't have been exactly the same but yes, had they wanted to, they could've gotten as close as possible.
> So...it's hopeless....I'm speechless. And I lose interest in this fruitless discussion.
It's your problem, not mine.
> And please don't accuse me of personal attacks,
I do have the right to 'accuse' you of that, as I've never attacked you personally, but you have. Totally unfair.
> you obviously don't notice how you make people look like idiots when you put everything down
I don't make anybody feel like idiot. And I don't put everything down. Again, if you say '[i]Hot Space[/i] is better than [i]The Game[/i], it's your opinion and it's neither more valid nor less valid than mine (which is the other way around). However, if you say '[i]Hot Space[/i] was released before [i]The Game[/i]', then I can tell you 'no, it wasn't' because it wasn't.
You said or implied (don't remember your exact words) Roger's drumming was largely (or chiefly) replaced by machines. Which wasn't. So I pointed it out. That doesn't make you look like an idiot, it simply corrects a mistake (and that [i]is [/i]a mistake since that [i]is [/i]a B/W situation). Same for you saying there's little of Brian May in the tracks.
> that doesn't fit into your world.
I haven't got a world, so your statement is clearly false.
> I'm out of this discussion.
It's your decision. It doesn't change the fact your drum/Brian comments were wrong and doesn't change the fact multi-tracking is not exclusive to the 70's, and it doesn't change the fact there is a lot of multitracking in [i]Hot Space[/i], and it doesn't change the fact that I haven't made personal attack against you while you have.
> Sebastian, I will simply say that if you think it's about me not understanding your post, and if you think that your posts about May being a lesser guitarist than Petrucci were subjective, then we have a different view of history.
And which view would it be? [/QUOTE]
It's like talking to a wall. As a musician you can play on a track and yet there is little of you there...
Brian May may have played rhythm on some tracks and yet he is "not there" on tracks like "Staying Power", "Cool Cat", "Body Language"...."Action".
The only conclusion I can draw from your words is, that you are full of "theory" but you don't have any practice. I don't think you can even play guitar or any instrument at all on a higher level. Otherwise you would blush about many things you have written above.
And now I blush cause I have contradicted myself when I said I'm out of this discussion...but now I am. ;-)
Sebastian · Member since
On 'Body Language' there's very little of Brian May. On 'Cool Cat' there's no Brian May. On the rest of the album there is more than a little, full stop. Of course, there's the subjective point of whether he 'felt' what he was playing or whatever, but unless you can read minds there's no way to know that. It's like speculating whether he had a red t-shirt while recording the tracks.
And what's your excuse for the drum computer thing?
By the way, your comments about me being full of theory are again a personal attack, which suggests you either have an obsession with me, or you simply can't accept you were wrong. In either case, you're a lot closer to the 'wall' you mention. And as you correctly pointed out, you contradicted yourself, adding to the overall possibility that you [i]do[/i] have a lot of insecurities.
