Freddie said the 180 vocals thing it himself in 1977.[/QUOTE]
He didn't. His exact words can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB6Q9e9N6gM. From 1:10 to 1:15 he says, and I quote: 'I think between the three of us we sort of, we recreated a sort of 160- to 200-piece choir effect.'
Keep in mind the key words:
* Think (i.e., it wasn't an exact figure, but a ballpark one).
* Recreated (i.e., they made it sound like there were 160 to 200 voices, when there weren't).
* Effect
* He didn't say 180.
When Brian recreated a clarinet effect on 'Good Company' with his guitar, it doesn't mean he actually turned the guitar into a clarinet. It means it made it sound like a clarinet, without being a clarinet. Same here: they made it sound like a big choir, even though they didn't add an amount of overdubs anywhere near that figure.
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
Freddie said it in an interview two years after it was recorded, and Roger agreed with him. [/QUOTE]
He didn't, for the reasons already explained. Also, when he said 'I dress to kill' he wasn't confessing to murder or manslaughter.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if we're going to cherry pick certain things they said within a frame of minutes...
Interviewer: 'Can you think how many times [how many overdubs] to get that number of people?'
Roger: 'Well, divide 200 by 3'.
...
Freddie: 'Cause I mean er, like, there was a section of "No, no, no" and we had to sort of do that, sort of, different escalating things, and we just sat there, going "No, no, no, no, no, no, no", about, I don't know, 150 times.'
To reiterate, I agree that there definitely aren't that many vocals on the operatic section. However, in 1977, they were either exaggerating intentionally, or Freddie introduced the vague idea of it being upwards of 100 vocals and then the others agreed with it, having misremembered. Still, with the amount of times the three members repeat it, it can't just be a case of simple and momentary hyperbole.
It's also clear that Freddie didn't just mean to say they were trying to [b]sound[/b] like a 160-200 part choir - that's what he said initially, yes, but moments later he said plainly that he recalled them ovedubbing the 'No, no, no' part somewhere in the realm of 150 times.
Again, since there's a lot of room for me to be misunderstood here, all I'm saying is that it seems the band [b]believed[/b] that they'd overdubbed it this many times, when in fact they hadn't. For instance, they certainly would have had to redo sections in order to get them to perfection; thus, them having recorded a certain amount of overdubs doesn't mean the same amount appears on the final product. There's also the fact that the monotony and repetitiveness of layering the vocals would have certainly made it easy to misremember; it probably felt like it took a very long time.
Sebastian · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
Freddie: ...we just sat there, going "No, no, no, no, no, no, no", about, I don't know, 150 times.' [/QUOTE]
Again, there are key words: 'about' and 'I don't know.' Moreover, as you correctly stated later on (sort of), doing something 150 times doesn't necessarily mean all 150 attempts were put together.
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
To reiterate, I agree that there definitely aren't that many vocals on the operatic section.[/QUOTE]
That's the most important point.
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
However, in 1977, they were either exaggerating intentionally...[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't be the first or last time such thing happened in show business.
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
or Freddie introduced the vague idea of it being upwards of 100 vocals.[/QUOTE]
Except he didn't... he introduced the vague ideas of it having an *effect* of a 160- to 200-piece choir, and the idea of them going 'no no no no no' for about 150 times, but neither actually translates into the song having more (or less) than 180 simultaneous vocal overdubs.
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
Still, with the amount of times the three members repeat it, it can't just be a case of simple and momentary hyperbole. [/QUOTE]
Because it's good for showbiz. Compare:
1 Bo Rhap was the first video ever made and the most expensive recording ever. It defied all conventions by having over 180 vocal overdubs recorded on 16-track analogue tape, lasting about seven minutes and having been played by Kenny Everett fourteen times on his radio programme.
2. Bo Rhap was preceded by many videos made by a number of acts, Queen included. It was an expensive recording, though it's nearly impossible to prove whether it was the most expensive one ever (even within the context of the band and album). It lacked some typical hit-single traits but had the benefit of some others, had about 20 simultaneous vocal overdubs on its 'fattest' bits, lasted less than six minutes (one of several hit singles to clock over four minutes) and was played by Kenny Everett four times on his radio programme.
Statement 2 is far more truthful, but Statement 1 is far more spectacular. Guess which one the band, promoters and fans are gonna spread...
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
moments later he said plainly that he recalled them ovedubbing the 'No, no, no' part somewhere in the realm of 150 times..[/QUOTE]
If we're going by what he said 'plainly,' he said 'about, I don't know,' therefore clearing up it wasn't an absolute or exact figure. Given how interesting and unorthodox that seven 'no' bit is, it is very likely that they had to try it out countless times in order to get it right. The actual claim of 150 is more of a ballpark calculation, similar to people saying 'Germany have won like a million world cups.' It's not meant to be taken literally.
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
Again, since there's a lot of room for me to be misunderstood here, all I'm saying is that it seems the band [b]believed[/b] that they'd overdubbed it this many times, when in fact they hadn't.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily, for the reasons already explained.
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
For instance, they certainly would have had to redo sections in order to get them to perfection; thus, them having recorded a certain amount of overdubs doesn't mean the same amount appears on the final product. There's also the fact that the monotony and repetitiveness of layering the vocals would have certainly made it easy to misremember; it probably felt like it took a very long time.[/QUOTE]
From a practical standpoint, it would've been far from sensible to actually layer sixty-plus iterations of every part. Too much distortion, too much bouncing, sound quality would've been seriously affected, and it wouldn't have necessarily sound any bigger.
The approach Brian has described many times (the three of them singing each part, then doubling it and maybe tripling it before moving on to the next) makes far more sense. The way those three voices blended, plus some different mic positioning and reverb and voila: you get about two dozen overdubs *sound like* a couple hundred. That's the whole point: the *efffect.*
tomchristie22 · Member since
Hmm yeah, you're right.
It seems like the band's statements in that interview were what began the 180 vocal idea which is so widely accepted and repeated now.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
Bumping your own thread is the equivalent of sniffing your own farts and declaring them magnificent.[/QUOTE]
vs.
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
Compare:
1 Bo Rhap was the first video ever made and the most expensive recording ever. It defied all conventions by having over 180 vocal overdubs recorded on 16-track analogue tape, lasting about seven minutes and having been played by Kenny Everett fourteen times on his radio programme.
2. Bo Rhap was preceded by many videos made by a number of acts, Queen included. It was an expensive recording, though it's nearly impossible to prove whether it was the most expensive one ever (even within the context of the band and album). It lacked some typical hit-single traits but had the benefit of some others, had about 20 simultaneous vocal overdubs on its 'fattest' bits, lasted less than six minutes (one of several hit singles to clock over four minutes) and was played by Kenny Everett four times on his radio programme.
Statement 2 is far more truthful, but Statement 1 is far more spectacular. Guess which one the band, promoters and fans are gonna spread...
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
moments later he said plainly that he recalled them ovedubbing the 'No, no, no' part somewhere in the realm of 150 times..[/QUOTE]
If we're going by what he said 'plainly,' he said 'about, I don't know,' therefore clearing up it wasn't an absolute or exact figure. Given how interesting and unorthodox that seven 'no' bit is, it is very likely that they had to try it out countless times in order to get it right. The actual claim of 150 is more of a ballpark calculation, similar to people saying 'Germany have won like a million world cups.' It's not meant to be taken literally.
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
For instance, they certainly would have had to redo sections in order to get them to perfection; thus, them having recorded a certain amount of overdubs doesn't mean the same amount appears on the final product. There's also the fact that the monotony and repetitiveness of layering the vocals would have certainly made it easy to misremember; it probably felt like it took a very long time.[/QUOTE]
From a practical standpoint, it would've been far from sensible to actually layer sixty-plus iterations of every part. Too much distortion, too much bouncing, sound quality would've been seriously affected, and it wouldn't have necessarily sound any bigger.
The approach Brian has described many times (the three of them singing each part, then doubling it and maybe tripling it before moving on to the next) makes far more sense. The way those three voices blended, plus some different mic positioning and reverb and voila: you get about two dozen overdubs *sound like* a couple hundred. That's the whole point: the *efffect.*[/QUOTE]
I rest my case.
The King Of Rhye · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
When Brian recreated a clarinet effect on 'Good Company' with his guitar, it doesn't mean he actually turned the guitar into a clarinet.[/QUOTE]
Yeah.....Brian doesn't turn guitars into things, he turns things (and people?) into guitars! (see "The Spree Of Brian May" by Grand Gestures)
