(untitled)

So what's the purpose of this "debate"? You say you have audio and it backs up your explanation and only your explanation. I hear these versions and they don't sound oversung--a malleable definition if they're ever was one.

I am saying these versions are *not* obnoxious. "Your" audio does not *prove* this. For me. For you, it does. God bless.

But now that you brought up red herring, a term used in rhetoric, and seem to think I'm using some rhetorical tricks to prove my point, here some of the following fallacies you've committed, just in these few responses:

Appeal to motive. We call is the intentional fallacy in my business(literature). This is when the interpreter actually presents him or herself as going inside the artist's (i.e., Freddie's) mind, and saying how he *meant* or intended to sing (i.e., Freddie is trying be more "macho"; or, to a lesser degree "obnoxious").

Cherry-picking. Using the actual notes, the fact of them, as back up for your own subjective interpretation.

Circular Logic. It's "obnoxious" because it's "obnoxious." "Is there a reason for the obnoxious renditions of the song?" is another version of "When did you stop beating your wife?" The premise is part of your conclusion.

And a red herring can be a red herring even if you start off your "debate" with these terms. It assumes everyone else will agree with those interpretations, the debater or reader will then be distracted, and then we all are supposed to feel free to move on to the next topic, which is, Why do we think this is so?

So, besides my disagreement with you and a couple others that he is in fact oversinging here -- which I think you're conflating with simply singing higher notes -- you're using that as your supporting argument for many other interpretations, which I also feel are off the mark.

Me, I guess I'm committing the fallacy of argumentum ad nauseum. I'm going on way toooo long.

I don't think you're, like, morally wrong or whatever (that would be a straw man), maybe just wrong-headed in your qualitative, aesthetic assessment of the performances.

Happily, aesthetic assessment can't be decided upon in a final way; ask Emmanuel Kant. These are not mathematical proofs; piling up reasons that support a single argument doesn't ispo facto mean anyone is right about these things. It's an ongoing conversation.

The methods used in framing these discussions/debates, here and in other places, to me,  are not all not terribly useful.

The raw data/trainspotting quality of transcribing down which notes he hits at different points, which I find is pretty fascinating. I applaud you for that.

But it's the interpretations and support of them I find kind of wrong-headed and sometimes grating, even more than Roger's backup singing on the Jazz tour! :)

Double post deleted here.

I never really liked it live after the Crazy Tour. The only exception is for a few shows in '81.

I don´t remember if he oversang Killer Queen in argentina 81... anyway this kind of post (about what notes hits freddie or the way he sang a song) are too much "structuralist" to me...

[QUOTE]

[b]Daniel Nester wrote: [/b] So what's the purpose of this "debate"? You say you have audio and it backs up your explanation and only your explanation. I hear these versions and they don't sound oversung--a malleable definition if they're ever was one.

I am saying these versions are *not* obnoxious. "Your" audio does not *prove* this. For me. For you, it does. God bless.

But now that you brought up red herring, a term used in rhetoric, and seem to think I'm using some rhetorical tricks to prove my point, here some of the following fallacies you've committed, just in these few responses:

Appeal to motive. We call is the intentional fallacy in my business(literature). This is when the interpreter actually presents him or herself as going inside the artist's (i.e., Freddie's) mind, and saying how he *meant* or intended to sing (i.e., Freddie is trying be more macho; or, to a lesser degree obnoxious)

Cherry-picking. Using the actual notes, the fact of them, as back up for your own subjective interpretation.

Circular Logic. It's obnoxious because it's obnoxious. "Is there a reason for the obnoxious renditions of the song?" is another version of "When did you stop beating your wife?" The premise is part of your conclusion.

And a red herring can be a red herring even if you start off your "debate" with these terms. It assumes everyone else will agree with those interpretations, the debater or reader will then be distracted, and then we all are supposed to feel free to move on to the next topic, which is, Why do we think this is so?

So, besides my disagreement with you and a couple others that he is in fact oversinging here -- which I think you're conflating with simply singing higher notes -- you're using that as your supporting argument for many other interpretations, which I also feel are off the mark.

Me, I guess I'm committing the fallacy of argumentum ad nauseum. I'm going on way toooo long.

I don't think you're, like, morally wrong or whatever (that would be a straw man), maybe just wrong-headed in your qualitative, aesthetic assessment of the performance.

Happily, aesthetic assessment can't be decided upon in a final way; ask Emmanuel Kant. These are not mathematical proofs; piling up reasons that support a single argument doesn't ispo facto mean anyone is right about these things. It's an ongoing conversation.

The way these discussions/debates are framed here and in other places, to me,  not all not terribly useful.

Besides the raw data/trainspotting quality of transcribing down which notes he hits at different points, which I find is pretty fascinating. I applaud you for that.

It's your interpretations and support of them I find kind of wrong-headed and sometimes grating, even more than Roger's backup singing on the Jazz tour.[/QUOTE]
Being a live concert enthusiast, analyzer, and researcher has its drawbacks! Since you took the time to write that long post (and I read it all), I'm going to answer back with a long post of my own: [img=/images/smiley/msn/tounge_smile.gif][/img]

Those 1980 versions of Killer Queen are open to different interpretations: Some people find them excellent, bad, obnoxious (not just me), funny, etc. All of that stuff is personal opinion--but the one fact (that can be proven via audio), is that Freddie was technically oversinging the song: He throws in random higher notes (often G4 and A4), in spots where the original notes (that are on the studio version or 70s live versions) were much lower. He also tends to hit G4s with more "chest" connection and purposely deepen his tone on some versions. My interpretation is that he wanted to sound more macho (he sounds more "strong" and "manly" in that deeper voice). He never did that on the 70s versions, and he stopped that style by 1981. My guess is that since he recently grew the mustache, he wanted to present himself as being "Mr. Bad Guy."

The cherry picking fallacy is a moot point: The audio CLEARLY shows proof of the oversinging. Just compare the record version or something like Rainbow 1974 to a 1980 version. This is the only tour where he consistently was oversinging the song. There's a few versions here and there from the 70s where he'd oversing it a bit (Houston 1977, Stockholm 1978, etc), but those versions don't come across as overdone as the 1980 versions.

The circular logic is also moot (plus you used the wrong word in your example): I'm not saying it's obnoxious because it is, I said I think the interpretations of the song were obnoxious (which still allows everybody else to make their own conclusion on them). I think you meant "Oversung." Again, that's proven by the audio (the random higher notes, etc), and the common on-line definition (Overdoing the singing).

I want you to listen to some of these links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJX_xGARfGQ (The Hauge: 1974)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfyYkr3v-NM (Liverpool: 1974

Now compare them to these two versions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elp3ek-XpmU (New York: 1980)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsSb7EBqAq0 (Wembley: 1980)

All you have to do is compare those 1974 versions with the 1980 versions!

Good day Sir! [img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img]

[QUOTE]

[b]MERQRY wrote: [/b] I don´t remember if he oversang Killer Queen in argentina 81... anyway this kind of post (about what notes hits freddie or the way he sang a song) are too much "structuralist" to me...[/QUOTE]
Buenos Aires is oversung a bit, but less than most of the 1980 versions!

[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]
Personally I would say he had to sing this night after night, which would drive you mad particularly as the song was written years before.
I see no reason why he wouldnt experment for his own amusment just to shake things up a little, if he liked something it would get used again.
[/QUOTE]
^ this.

[QUOTE]

[b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]
Personally I would say he had to sing this night after night, which would drive you mad particularly as the song was written years before.
I see no reason why he wouldnt experment for his own amusment just to shake things up a little, if he liked something it would get used again.
[/QUOTE]
^ this.[/QUOTE]
^ I agree as well!

Around this time (1979-1980) Freddie started using large quantities of cocaine and alcohol, both of which affect the voice. Also, I believe he was already smoking in '80, which is another factor.

All in all, I think Freddie was in pretty bad shape, vocally, on the The Game-tour, which probably explains this Killer Queen-thing too.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]
Personally I would say he had to sing this night after night, which would drive you mad particularly as the song was written years before.
I see no reason why he wouldnt experment for his own amusment just to shake things up a little, if he liked something it would get used again.
[/QUOTE]
^ this.[/QUOTE]

Disagree. This argument requires quite a lot of assumptions. Many songs were performed pretty much every night, then why is Killer Queen the only one that gets 'messed up' this way? Sure, there are glitches on WATC sometimes, but nothing like this. Also, it would require the assumption that Freddie / the band got bored with older songs - then why did they re-introduce so many during the tour for The Works? They *chose* to include older songs like Seven Seas of Rhye, Liar, Killer Queen, etc., there was never any requirement. No audience would have grumbled overly much if Killer Queen were dropped from the set in 1980. I think voice issues are a more likely candidate, as Killer Queen is a song with quite a number of vocal snags that Freddie could pull off in 1974/75, but not so well in 1980/81.

Possibly true, but I think if you are going to try different things on a song maybe you chose a song that lends itself to going so more readily than others. In 86' he made subtle changes to AOBTD live while other tracks were kept pretty straight.
It doesnt have to be simply because it's an older track, maybe he just fell out of love with it for a while, it would have been played a LOT by that point, artistically you get bored quickly, the fact they re-introduced older songs into the set next time out to my mind adds weight to this argument. The fact some of those tracks hadn't been played for a while says to me that is the reason they came back.

Again, there is no standard definition of oversung or oversinging, let alone "technically oversinging." And by all the definitions available to us --melisma, adding decorations are some -- making an extra effort to add emotional content comes closest. It's just that Freddie isn't adding the usual or intended (for the song) extra emotional content.  Whereas in a ballad, for example an Aguilera or Carey might be doing runs, melisma, all to pile on the emotion, and bathetically so, Freddie add his to present a different interpretation entirely, and that's where these terms "obnoxious" and "macho" come out. I definitely disagree with the idea that he's being "obnoxious," but you might be onto something with "macho."

So, maybe chest-singing might work?  You seem to have a Mercury-specific definition of oversung and I would much prefer that: Mr. Bad Guy-ing. I'm really not kidding!  It definitely is a different persona he's putting across in these later tours.  I love all things Queen circa Game and Hot Space, so I guess that's why I'm responding in this way.  Works and Magic Tour stuff I can't get worked up about, for example. Maybe it's because I was a teenager then or something.  I dunno.

I have to say, you're rocking out putting up these bootlegs online. You're a minor god in my book.

He went full Liza minelli on those.
He did oversing always in their live repertoire, but i'll agree that in this special case he seems either bored, or specially confortable with that song to do a more free rendition of it.

He did that with Crazy Little Thing Called Love in the next tours

[QUOTE]

[b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote: [/b] Around this time (1979-1980) Freddie started using large quantities of cocaine and alcohol, both of which affect the voice. Also, I believe he was already smoking in '80, which is another factor.

All in all, I think Freddie was in pretty bad shape, vocally, on the The Game-tour, which probably explains this Killer Queen-thing too.[/QUOTE]
==============

He was in great voice on most 1980-1981 shows! There's a few shows in the early European leg where he's a bit weaker than usual (Zurich, Cologne, Leiden), and he's unstable on some Japan 1981 performances--but other than that, he was in great voice (and very consistent on shows)!

[QUOTE]

[b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]
Personally I would say he had to sing this night after night, which would drive you mad particularly as the song was written years before.
I see no reason why he wouldnt experment for his own amusment just to shake things up a little, if he liked something it would get used again.
[/QUOTE]
^ this.[/QUOTE]

Disagree. This argument requires quite a lot of assumptions. Many songs were performed pretty much every night, then why is Killer Queen the only one that gets 'messed up' this way? Sure, there are glitches on WATC sometimes, but nothing like this. Also, it would require the assumption that Freddie / the band got bored with older songs - then why did they re-introduce so many during the tour for The Works? They *chose* to include older songs like Seven Seas of Rhye, Liar, Killer Queen, etc., there was never any requirement. No audience would have grumbled overly much if Killer Queen were dropped from the set in 1980. I think voice issues are a more likely candidate, as Killer Queen is a song with quite a number of vocal snags that Freddie could pull off in 1974/75, but not so well in 1980/81.[/QUOTE]
==============

He was a better singer in the early 1980s compared with his mid 70s voice. Killer Queen doesn't require too big of a range to hit all the notes. He most likely would've nailed the song live if he sang it closer to the album version. He just decided to change the delivery of the song to be more "macho."