Hot Space

Rain Must Fall: No kar version, so I'm using the album cut. Well, the pattern is obviously MIDI, and a good one actually in terms of mixing. Cymbal on 0.52 is real, and so are the tom fills near the second verse. Timbales, believe it or not, are actually real (e.g. 1.27), even in 2010 you can't get that sound from samples. Hi-hats are real during the solo. About that song, Roger did comment (BBC, May 1989) that it was mostly machine-like, with some overdubs he (Roger) put on top of it, most of which they (I assume John and Freddie) edited out. A shame. I suspect the programmed pattern was by John (listen to No Turning Back - the drummer's mostly put in the video as a prop). So, I was right: real + programmed. By the way, regarding the congas (3.01-3.03 for instance, and from then on), those ones are indeed sampled. Conga percussion is very very very hard to mic, and unless you've got a studio especially set-up for that (e.g. those used for Jamaican music), it's way cheaper to sample them if you've got the technology (and in late 80's, they did). In some cases, like 'Days of Our Lives', you can get the drummer miming congas in the video and thousands will believe he recorded the real thing!

Scandal: Listening to the extended version to have a clearer view. B/D is obviously real (again, you can't get that with machines even in 2010). Note the hi-hat thing showing up from time to time. Toms are also obviously real. Snare starts off more compressed but then it's clear that it's also real (note the echo). DR probably added a looot of processing to make it sound  contemporary and sort of European (if they thought they'd make it big in the States with this single they were nuts). It seems to me that, with some obvious exceptions (like ICLWY), Brian demanded his songs to include real drumming, while Roger and perhaps John were more keen on combining acoustic, electronic and programmed. While drums on this song are real, Roger is mostly miming something else in the video ... probably related to the fact he reportedly never liked the song. For some bits (e.g.
'twisted and broken') there's the illusion of an extra hi-hat (or a programmed one), most likely done via delay rather than MIDI - that way the producer could get the acoustic sound but the electronic feel, very clever indeed! Wonder if DR ever ran out of tricks... The organ is obviously synth-generated rather than a real one, BTW. You know, if you put this same drum pattern (with the tom fills) on a slightly faster tempo and processed it differently so it didn't 'warble' that way, you'd get Roger playing neo-punk a la Travis Barker! (I'm serious, try playing the Scandal pattern along with Adam's Song or Online Songs). Now I'm listening to the demo to see if there's any changes: now, there you do have it chiefly programmed (note the much drier snare, for instance). At the time, Brian's method was programming the drums on computers and then getting Roger (or Cozy, for his solo work) to learn the part and replace it by real acoustic drums. For some cases (like DBY, album version), the track wound up with the programmed thing. Thankfully, for Scandal, it was mostly replaced although the tambourineloop still shows up from time to time.

My Baby Does Me: Main pattern is a poorly disguised (or not even disguised) programmed pattern. I wonder if John and Roger had a fall-out or something as it seems that for both of his songs drums are mostly (but not entirely) machines. Or maybe it was Freddie's idea, or maybe Roger was simply on tour with The Cross and that's it. The fills are also something you can easily get
via early MIDI sequencers and/or Passport Master Tracks software for those old Atari's. E-piano is on a DX-7 (same sound on One Year of Love). There's a lot of processing to make the pattern sound more realistic but it's not. There, I admit I was mistaken: it's all programmed. In fact, Roger doesn't sing harmonies on this song either so they did it completely without him. He
must be happy now as it's probably the weakest track on the album. Same programmed pattern is used for I Guess We're Falling Out BTW, but that one does have some real drums as well, most noticeably the cymbal rolls.

Slightly Mad: Main pattern is indeed Roger's acoustic playing, note the hi-hat thing (although more subtle than on, say, Ride the Wild Wind) and the powerful snare. B/D isn't too noticeable as it's perfectly locked in with the (also real) bass. I hope multi-tracks some day see the (public) light of day... for ear education and Queen investigation, they'd be quite the holy grail. There's
a programmed shaker (more prominent during the 'banana tree' bit) that seems to have been fading in since earlier on. I guesstimate there was a lot of input from all band members in this song, and they all contributed ideas for the MIDI parts. On 2.34 you have a very Roger-esque (and very real) fill before the solo, which proves that (at least that part) is neither  programmed nor looped. For 'oh oh ah ah', there's no natural echo when drums stop, which makes me think that they simply muted them - probably a post-production decision then. This song is so weird... and it's sort of tragic and comic to think that a dying man came up with it.

Days of Our Lives: Actually, three months ago I had that debate via the YT comment section on the karaoke version. There, I clear up that while the shaker is programmed and the congas are sampled, the main drum part is indeed acoustic. I also clear up that on the earlier Bechstein Debauchery site I had mistakenly stated those drums were programmed and that's probably why Georg's book (sort of a Bible for Queen Scholars now) also, incorrectly, claims so. Roger plays so perfectly that you can mistake him by a machine. Note the hi-hat thing also present on the Tribute version (the only one I know of that he played drums live on that song). Speaking of which, for the Tribute version, Roger had worked out a much better drum part with some nice fills before the solo kicked in ... it's a shame he didn't think of it a year earlier so that he could put it on the version we all know and (most of us) love. Note, again, the cymbal rolls and the warm snare no computers or samples can yet emulate, 20 years after the Innuendo album was recorded. For some reason, no matter how advanced synths and digital stuff are, great musicians (like Roger) still use real acoustic grand pianos, real acoustic or electric guitars, real violins, etc. Back to TATDOOL
karaoke version, on 2.55 there's a wonderful cymbal thing very reminiscent of the early days. Roger's very underrated. Another cymbal roll during the last chorus. Some nice splash cymbals there too... and a wonderful hi-hat ornament during the outro.

> I think they probably did it because it worked better for the song. That's the important thing. Not who gets to show off the most on their instrument.  That's why Queen weren't a metal band ;)

But they were clever enough to notice that, as in the examples above, actual drums fit in better for most of those songs, and that' why for most cases, they were still the norm. Electronic drums, keyboard drums and computer drums (including MIDI) were used mostly as an overdub and only occasionally (e.g. My Baby Does Me) replacing the real thing, but that's it.

BTW, thank you for bringing this up, as I was 'forced' to listen to some great songs again. I may not like that era as much as 'Queen II' or 'A Night at the Opera', but it's still great!

Thanks for the detailed reply Sebastien. I basically joined this forum so I could find out a bunch of geeky shit like this about the recording and production of the songs.

I'm still not entirely convinced by some of your explanations. Even if the snare on say, AKOM or IWTBF sounds real, it could just be sampled from a hit and programmed. Just because it sounds like a real drum hit, doesn't mean it's not played through a sampler. The beats sound too quantized. I know nowadays you can record a drummer into software, then use something like Beat Detective to quantize it, replace hits with samples, etc, and make it sound almost like a drum machine. Surely that technology didn't exist in the 80's? Surely it would have been easier to sample a hit or a beat, then loop it?

Where did you get all your info about this? I've seen the One Vision documentary, but haven't really been able to get hold of anything else.

> I'm still not entirely convinced by some of your explanations.

Neither am I. There are probably several mistakes, so I hope this research (and many others) undergoes several re-writings until it's (closer to) flawless.

> Even if the snare on say, AKOM or IWTBF sounds real, it could just be sampled from a hit and programmed.

Sure, but for that matter, the same could be done with vocals (word-wise), guitars (chord-wise), etc.

> Just because it sounds like a real drum hit, doesn't mean it's not played through a sampler.

It's a bit of a grey area sometimes... let's say Rog recorded the pattern, then they quantised it and looped it. Does it count as human or programmed? Or both? Or neither?

> The beats sound too quantized.

So do many of the 70's things, that I bet many people would swear are machines had they been done a decade later. Or think about Ringo.

> I know nowadays you can record a drummer into software, then use something like Beat Detective to quantize it, replace hits with samples, etc, and make it sound almost like a drum machine.

Roger's synchronisation already made him sound like a machine when he wanted that kind of sound.

> Surely it would have been easier to sample a hit or a beat, then loop it?

Sure, but for that matter, they could've also sampled and looped the bass in similar sections, or guitar chords, or piano, etc. We could start second-guessing everything, or get to a point where we could say 'OK, thinking logically, what's more likely?'

> Where did you get all your info about this?

Years of making mistakes and learning from them.

> I've seen the One Vision documentary, but haven't really been able to get hold of anything else.

Check out YT.

You're right, I'm probably over analysing. Never a good thing when it comes to rock 'n' roll.

Awesome posts Sebastian! (as usual)

I am still reading through the latter stuff but I wanted to comment regarding the Works bit, since that's the album I have on my car stereo now.

Some key items I see here:
- Most drums are 'real', as in, played by Roger and not programmed in a computer/machine of any kind.
- The 'real' drums in The Works sound different to the 'real' drums in the 70's albums. This is due to different gear (smaller kits, not entirely acoustic sometimes) and production styles/methods being used.
- Sometimes the songs used drum loops (still, played by Roger)
- Roger's timing is usually flawless.

Considering these points... No wonder Rog is mistaken for a Machine sometimes, hehe :).

This was kinda the concept of the "The Works" album, wasn't it? Man vs. Machine? Now, about the "Machines (Back to Humans)" track: I think the transition from 'machine' to 'human' drums is not that evident because the human drums don't sound too organic.

I guess the drums on that song should have gone from "Mr. Roboto" to "White Man" for the effect to be more noticeable. :P

Yes, the transition is a bit smooth(er than what it was probably meant to be). It seems to me that, in the early days of digital mastering, some of those dynamics were lost. That's one of the recurrent problems of records being louder and louder.

Plus, if you factor in vocals (with those amazing two-part harmonies), there's a lot pushed to the background and people can easily overlook the 'battle' between machines and acoustic drums. Same for bass.

When I drive in my car and listen to Hot Space one moment and then Queen II the next moment it is insane how it is the same band ..I know there was a 12 yr. difference but it is kind of sad how a band can go from White Queen (As it began) to a shit song like Dancer

sara1893 wrote: When I drive in my car and listen to Hot Space one moment and then Queen II the next moment it is insane how it is the same band ..I know there was a 12 yr. difference but it is kind of sad how a band can go from White Queen (As it began) to a shit song like Dancer

Sorry to pick but it was only 8 years difference. Actually if they'd carried on making albums like Queen 2 then they would have been dead and buried by '82 - punk explosion et al and lets face it, despite Q2's musical accomplishment which is considerable it does now sound a little dated and proggy with lyrics about white queens, ogres and misty castles. Also Dancer is a pretty good song in my book - a real groove, heavy and funky at the same time with that slowed down drum track. Now if you wanted shit Queen songs you had to wait another four years....

I love Queen II (BF, I don't think it's outdated simply because of its lyrics), but I also love Dancer. Yes, it's not as good as Queen's best material, but I think it is INCREDIBLY fun with a fantastic vocal performance from Freddie. I agree with the way BF describes it; 'a pretty good song.... a real groove, heavy and funky at the same time with that slowed down drum track'.


I've said it before, and I will say it again. IMO Hot Space is Queen's most underrated album. It's enormously fun, Freddie is at the top of his game (and sounds like he's having a ball of a time), the group took risks for the last time until The Miracle or Innuendo, and IMO it was also a pretty consistent album. There were one or two songs that were extremely ordinary, but when I think of Queen's worst songs, many of them in all honestly come from the 70's, and not Hot Space.

Amazon wrote: I love Queen II (BF, I don't think it's outdated simply because of its lyrics), but I also love Dancer. Yes, it's not as good as Queen's best material, but I think it is INCREDIBLY fun with a fantastic vocal performance from Freddie. I agree with the way BF describes it; 'a pretty good song.... a real groove, heavy and funky at the same time with that slowed down drum track'.

I've said it before, and I will say it again. IMO Hot Space is Queen's most underrated album. It's enormously fun, Freddie is at the top of his game (and sounds like he's having a ball of a time), the group took risks for the last time until The Miracle or Innuendo, and IMO it was also a pretty consistent album. There were one or two songs that were extremely ordinary, but when I think of Queen's worst songs, many of them in all honestly come from the 70's, and not Hot Space.

Whatever Queen 2 is, it is definately a child of it's time - love it or loath it. Please understand me - it's an immense achievement but just to my ears, lyrically, it really does sit in that jethro Tull, Zeppelin, Wishbone Ash, early Rush area - dated or not. Hot Space on the other hand is clearly lyrically quite contemporary even now.

When CD's came out I cheerfully dumped most of my massive album collection in the used record stores. Stupid boy! I've now burnt all my CD's to my hard drive (they are going to the use CD store!) and I've spent the last couple of years replacing all my very favourite vinyl again. At first I  just wanted the 70's queen stuff again as i rate 70's Queen much more highly but just recently I got an '82 copy of Hot space.. Maybe I'm sentimental as it was the first Queen tour I saw but just maybe history will judge it as one of the bravest and most innovative things they did... 

Actually a friend who knew i was recollecting vinyl recently gave me a copy of A Kind Of Magic - thankfully the used record store is still open.....:-)

Whatever Queen 2 is, it is definately a child of it's time - love it or loath it. Please understand me - it's an immense achievement but just to my ears, lyrically, it really does sit in that jethro Tull, Zeppelin, Wishbone Ash, early Rush area - dated or not. Hot Space on the other hand is clearly lyrically quite contemporary even now.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

All Queen albums are "children of it's time". Technology made a big step forward and that's what Queen always made use of. And the world around them also influenced their music.
Also the thinking was different. Musicians were driven by the idea not to repeat themselves, every album...every single had to be different.
 It was the 80s that changed this, when market research became more powerful and the goal was to "give the people what they want" instead of playing with a risk. 
And that lead to "The Works", a kind of "The Game pt.2"....

Anyway, most successfull bands only enjoy 3 or 4 years of real creativity and big chart success. And then it's over. So all in all Queen did enormously well, no matter if this or that album does not really stand the test of time.

Only that Queen II does stand the test of time, HS doesn't. Lyrically speaking, there's always gonna be room for fantasy (think about how popular Harry Potter and Twilight films are). In terms of recording, compare John's magnificent bass sound (on Black Queen for instance, or Seven Seas) with the shitty synth on Body Language or Dancer. Which ones become dated from 1983 onwards? Not to mention the (few but existent) drum-machines...

Sebastian wrote: Only that Queen II does stand the test of time, HS doesn't. Lyrically speaking, there's always gonna be room for fantasy (think about how popular Harry Potter and Twilight films are). In terms of recording, compare John's magnificent bass sound (on Black Queen for instance, or Seven Seas) with the shitty synth on Body Language or Dancer. Which ones become dated from 1983 onwards? Not to mention the (few but existent) drum-machines...
Queen 2 doesn't stand the test of time lyrically at least - prog music grew up as a result of the generation that first read Tolkien and C.S. Lewis et al - hence all those 70's bands writing Fairy Stories. Funny how with the advent of said Movies of Tolkien, Lewis etc. we haven't seen a resurgence of prog in popular music culture - there's a reason for that, peoples creative imaginations are no longer fired by this kind of inspiration - so by definition dated.

Thematically, rubbish or not - Hot Space covers Love Songs, Political Comment, Social comment etc - all the themes that are still covered by singers and bands to this day - so by definition contemporary.. 

Have to say, better melodies and craft on Q2 though and Sevens seas beats anything on HS hands down dated lyrics or not.

Oh and by the way - DANCER - I've said it before and I'll say it a again; a great groove (sorry if that word offends proggies) - heavy and funky (oops - did it again) at the same time and I love the slowed down drum track..Sometimes genius is the simplest of things....

Soundfreak wrote: Whatever Queen 2 is, it is definately a child of it's time - love it or loath it. Please understand me - it's an immense achievement but just to my ears, lyrically, it really does sit in that jethro Tull, Zeppelin, Wishbone Ash, early Rush area - dated or not. Hot Space on the other hand is clearly lyrically quite contemporary even now.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

All Queen albums are "children of it's time". Technology made a big step forward and that's what Queen always made use of. And the world around them also influenced their music.
Also the thinking was different. Musicians were driven by the idea not to repeat themselves, every album...every single had to be different.
 It was the 80s that changed this, when market research became more powerful and the goal was to "give the people what they want" instead of playing with a risk. 
And that lead to "The Works", a kind of "The Game pt.2"....

Anyway, most successfull bands only enjoy 3 or 4 years of real creativity and big chart success. And then it's over. So all in all Queen did enormously well, no matter if this or that album does not really stand the test of time.

I think Hot Space was definately an attempt to do something different too and Queen, throughout their career - into the 80's and beyond continued to do  things differently and tried not to repeat themselves..I can't think of two Queen singles that sounded samey..

Nothing against Hot Hpace, it's actually a underated album.  cool record,  but Queen2 is far better in every way, including Lryics.  (way more original).  Usually Time takes care of what's considered good or Bad, or Ordinary.  Maybe Queen2 isn't the most popular of albums,  but most rock fans who hear it are blown away by it.  Music that has a huge influence on musicians years after it's release.  36 years later Musicians still bring up Queen2.   If Hot space was really that great We would hear what a big Influence it was despite it's lack of popularity.  I do think it's underated because fans and critics alway's mention it as their worst album when it's not.