OK there are a few weird "artifacts" in Freddie's vocal on a few parts, but I can't understand why people claim that the backing vocals were overdubbed? And Freddie does sound similar to the bootlegs
Thread
Posts in chronological order
i don't mean overdubbed per se rather than someone slapping a harmonizer on one or two vocals to make it sound as big as the album version.
The artefacts on his voice could easily pass as cracks and mannerisms? I think it sounds amazing. Never heard May sound so baroque. This recording has really effected me in a way I never thought Queen would again.
Very well put. I feel exactly the same.
--------------------------------------------------------
dysan wrote: The artefacts on his voice could easily pass as cracks and mannerisms? I think it sounds amazing. Never heard May sound so baroque. This recording has really effected me in a way I never thought Queen would again.
^ I'll second that.
Does it have overdubs? You bet your ass it does, just like Rock Montreal, Milton Keynes, Wembley. Overdubs are nothing new
on live releases, in my opinion they do not diminish them, it's par for the course.
This is the greatest ever live package release by Queen and I have bought every format.
Now, wheres Mr. Postman? :)...
on live releases, in my opinion they do not diminish them, it's par for the course.
This is the greatest ever live package release by Queen and I have bought every format.
Now, wheres Mr. Postman? :)...
Holly2003 wrote:
Very well put. I feel exactly the same.
--------------------------------------------------------
dysan wrote: The artefacts on his voice could easily pass as cracks and mannerisms? I think it sounds amazing. Never heard May sound so baroque. This recording has really effected me in a way I never thought Queen would again.
I have to disagree - I really trust my ears here. I've been messing around with auto tune and pitch correction when I have singers coming over to my home studio, and those slightly twangy, smurf sounding vocals are what you end up with if you overdo it. Still, if people don't think it's that noticeable, who cares right? :)
Oscar J wrote:Freddie could sound like a smurf at times ;-)
Holly2003 wrote:
Very well put. I feel exactly the same.
--------------------------------------------------------
dysan wrote: The artefacts on his voice could easily pass as cracks and mannerisms? I think it sounds amazing. Never heard May sound so baroque. This recording has really effected me in a way I never thought Queen would again.
I have to disagree - I really trust my ears here. I've been messing around with auto tune and pitch correction when I have singers coming over to my home studio, and those slightly twangy, smurf sounding vocals are what you end up with if you overdo it. Still, if people don't think it's that noticeable, who cares right? :)
Oscar J wrote:
Holly2003 wrote:
Very well put. I feel exactly the same.
--------------------------------------------------------
dysan wrote: The artefacts on his voice could easily pass as cracks and mannerisms? I think it sounds amazing. Never heard May sound so baroque. This recording has really effected me in a way I never thought Queen would again.
I have to disagree - I really trust my ears here. I've been messing around with auto tune and pitch correction when I have singers coming over to my home studio, and those slightly twangy, smurf sounding vocals are what you end up with if you overdo it. Still, if people don't think it's that noticeable, who cares right? :)
Timestamps please, thanks
'...the sound' sounds a bit autotunish to me.
PLOUGHboy sounds rather weird too, at least that note was the one that got me thinking. Come to say HELLO could also have something done to it, although I'm not sure. Will be interesting to hear the rest of it - wonder if the senaTORial pipe C5 is on there as well. Probably not though, since it's in a harmony part and Freddie could let Roger go for that one, like he did on "trumpeter".
Another thing I'm pretty sure they've done with this - is putting Freddies line from the studio version of the words "under lady's gown" as an overdub (although it's fairly low in the mix). That soft falsetto just can't be Roger's.
Another thing I'm pretty sure they've done with this - is putting Freddies line from the studio version of the words "under lady's gown" as an overdub (although it's fairly low in the mix). That soft falsetto just can't be Roger's.
Oscar J wrote: Freddie could let Roger go for that one, like he did on "trumpeter".
Another thing I'm pretty sure they've done with this - is putting Freddies line from the studio version of the words "under lady's gown" as an overdub (although it's fairly low in the mix). That soft falsetto just can't be Roger's.
None of these things are in the live sample??
You're right about the first thing - I just meant since they're doing harmonies on "trumpeter", Freddie could alter his part of the harmony so that he didn't have to get the high note.
But in the "under lady's gown" line, the album phrasing certainly is there deep down in the mix - have a closer listen to the harmonies. I'm not talking about Freddie's live lead vocals, but about the harmonies in the background. Pretty sure they've copy-pasted some stuff from the studio version multitrack there. You have to admire the work they've put into this!
All speculations of course.
But in the "under lady's gown" line, the album phrasing certainly is there deep down in the mix - have a closer listen to the harmonies. I'm not talking about Freddie's live lead vocals, but about the harmonies in the background. Pretty sure they've copy-pasted some stuff from the studio version multitrack there. You have to admire the work they've put into this!
All speculations of course.
I really don't hear anything odd on those two phrases.
Why would there be anything odd? I don't think you understand what I'm saying. :(