Timelines of Recordings

Great research work Sebastian.

I still have doubts on "A winters tale" too. I really doubt that Freddie could have sung "The Show Must Go On" or pretty much any other Innuendo song after "A Winters Tale" session. His voice is too strong on INNUENDO compared to "A winters tale". By this time it´s pretty clear that Freddie´s voice is losing strenght, culminating with "Mother Love".

I don´t have any evidence of this, but in this case, and FOR ME personally Freddie´s voice is guiving all the clues.

As i said before Great work Sebastian. And by the way, great site too. I remember discovering you site last year when you posted a link and i was IMPRESSED with it. You must have been doing this project for years, becuase the detail of separating segments of interviews to each song in particular- when applied- is really mind boggling. Thanks for all the Hard work.

Yes, there are some mistakes on my list, AWT being one of them.

I always thought Freddie's vocals for Let me Live were from 1991 because it sounded more nasal to me.

Still, Sebastian is right more often than he is wrong and he is widely known for doing his homework and validating any piece of info before reporting it as real.

Can anyone elaborate on 'Happy little fuck', 'you're young and you're crazy' and 'banana blues'. I have never heard of those.
I'm assuming they are original titles of songs on the album.

Happy Little Fuck, Young And Crazy & Banana Blues were the working titles for Brighton Rock, Tenement Funster & Misfire respectively.

For some reason I just can't imagine Brian calling a song that!

AFAIK, Mike Stone was responsible for some of those working titles.

Fred's vocal on LML comes from 2nd September 1983. Only a verse was usable so Maylor had to sing the rest.

Brian's a marvellous musician and a PhD, but that doesn't mean he can't swear.

I know that of course!
He just seems so softly spoken and polite.

[QUOTE] [b]liam wrote: [/b]

I know that of course!He just seems so softly spoken and polite.[/QUOTE]

"Polite" ???  Just get him crossed about the killing of badgers and foxes and you will see how impolite he can be :-)

[QUOTE] [b]liam wrote:[/b]
He just seems so softly spoken and polite.[/QUOTE]

'Seems' being a key word.

Queen forums - where people who have done years of meticulous research are questioned by people who haven't. We have raised the bar yet again!

And it's even worse at QOL.

That's not exclusive to Queen forums. There are idiots everywhere, on- and off-line.

As someone who tries to do meticulous research, even more so when writing an article for QOL, I can say my worst fear about it is getting a detail wrong. It's especially bad when I'm told that not only is X wrong, but "Geez, we discussed that in this 5 year old thread." Part of me knows mistakes will happen, while part of me wants to slap the commenter, not because I resent being corrected, but because mountains of research and accurate information seem to mean nothing because I didn't scour every thread in every forum since the dawn of the internet to find that tidbit. I think, "Well, if it's common knowledge, why isn't this commenter working to correct all the oft-repeated false information floating around out there?" I guess it's easier to just say, "You're wrong. Get a clue," than it is to be aggressive and to help disseminate accurate information.

In the end, if I make a mistake, I fix it. If my info is out of date, I update it.

I'll also add, with all the new and old documentation out there, research is a lot like archaeology, sifting through scraps to find what you need and hoping it all fits together coherently. It's also not as easy as it sounds dropping a few old perspectives on Queen/solo work, arrived at years ago when less was widely known and all you had were other people's conclusions in biographies and articles. You have to be ready to learn that a) what you previously believed may be entirely wrong, and b) what really happened affects the big picture you started off with. My articles, for example, go through at least 3 or 4 drafts. When I learn something like Neil Murray saying the Guitar Legends Festival was the start of his work with Brian, it means I could now place his recordings in a better chronological sequence. His bass parts were recorded *after* that. So, I shuffle bits around and suddenly find the necessity of doing so changes other positions of information. And on and on.

In the end, I'm happy with it, but I hope I didn't overlook something or get something wrong.

Or maybe Neil misremembered, that's another option to be considered, especially since it's been two decades and he's probably played with hundreds of artists before and since.

No, it's accurate. It was just something I didn't know when I started writing the article and it explained a lot, actually.