Ah. This thread reminds me of my drunk texts. Long winded, bombastic and better left to brevity.
I get what everybody's sayin.
I just felt I should get in the last word
matt z
Thread
Posts in chronological order
matt z
Zyxt.
tomchristie22
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
Actually, Freddie just wrote a line and a half, Brian did the rest.
[/QUOTE]
Which line and a half was Freddie's, out of interest? Is it one that's intact in the final song?
Actually, Freddie just wrote a line and a half, Brian did the rest.
[/QUOTE]
Which line and a half was Freddie's, out of interest? Is it one that's intact in the final song?
Sebastian
'Empty spaces - what are we living for
abandoned places, I guess we know.'
Brian wrote 'the score' and then basically everything else.
* Edited to correct a mistake I'd made.
abandoned places, I guess we know.'
Brian wrote 'the score' and then basically everything else.
* Edited to correct a mistake I'd made.
Oscar J
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
'Empty spaces - what are we living for
abandoned spaces, I guess we know.'
[/QUOTE]
Er... no. Abandoned places. Please learn how to write.
'Empty spaces - what are we living for
abandoned spaces, I guess we know.'
[/QUOTE]
Er... no. Abandoned places. Please learn how to write.
Sebastian
[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]
Er... no. Abandoned places. Please learn how to write. [/QUOTE]
Right :D Yeah, 'places' it is. Thanks!
Er... no. Abandoned places. Please learn how to write. [/QUOTE]
Right :D Yeah, 'places' it is. Thanks!
Mr.QueenFan
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
Of course it does! You keep saying that Roger and John are responsible for 90% of the song[/QUOTE]
At no point did I say they're responsible for 90% of the song. I said they're responsible for 90% of the chord progressions of the song... which is not the same thing. Again, please learn how to read.[/QUOTE]
I really don´t understand the reason of this reply. If you read again what i said about this subject, and not just what you decided to quote, you would realize that all i was talking about was the song structure containing the sequence. I never mentioned in that reply the vocals, lyrics, melodies or arragements, and so i never took what you said out of context, because i´m aware that you know that Brian was responsible for almost everything else on that song.
But here´s again what i said:
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
Of course it does! You keep saying that Roger and John are responsible for 90% of the song and that is not giving credit to Brian. If you want to be accurate you say that John and Roger are responsible for the chord sequence - let´s say 10% - that is featured in 90% of the song. Brian was the guy who gave a direction to that chord sequence, and we don´t know if Brian made some corrections for it to loop perfectly or not.
But even if Brian didn´t touch the chord sequence, he is the man responsible for the other 80% of the song where it was used. He gave it a meaning. Roger and John "only" created the loop - so to speak. Creatively speaking, they´re only responsible for those 10% who then inspired Brian to create almost everything else .[/QUOTE]
Just don´t expect me to use the term "song structure" everytime i´m talking about this same subject on the same paragraph, when it´s pretty obvious for those reading what i am talking about.
As for your recurring advise of "learn how to read" - i´m not bitting it!
A year or so ago i got into a fight with someone here that i later regreted. So, i´ve made a mental note not to go that route again. I´m here to have fun and learn somethings about Queen.
You´re not offending me, but you know what you´re trying to do. It would be more honest of you to just own it, instead of writing long replies with theories about the difference of posts who offend people and those it´s people´s problems.
For you to use your condescending tone and then deny it in a condescending way, it´s pretty disrespectful - not for me - but for the person you´re replying to and all Queenzoners reading your explanation. Maybe in your mind you think it´s genius. If that´s the case, stick to it!
That is the tone of several of your discussions in this forum.
But if several people tell you that you come across as disrespectul in several of your discussions on this board, maybe instead of saying that you´re not here to please everybody, you should take a step back and re-read some of your discussions in other threads.
As far as i´m concerned, this discussion with you it´s over!
The fact that i don´t feel offended, doesn´t mean i´m not aware you´re being disrespectful to me, and i cannot continue a conversation with someone who doesn´t respect me. I don´t do that in real life, i´m not going to do that behind a computer. The only reason i replied was because people are reading, and they deserve to read the explanations for clarification.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
Of course it does! You keep saying that Roger and John are responsible for 90% of the song[/QUOTE]
At no point did I say they're responsible for 90% of the song. I said they're responsible for 90% of the chord progressions of the song... which is not the same thing. Again, please learn how to read.[/QUOTE]
I really don´t understand the reason of this reply. If you read again what i said about this subject, and not just what you decided to quote, you would realize that all i was talking about was the song structure containing the sequence. I never mentioned in that reply the vocals, lyrics, melodies or arragements, and so i never took what you said out of context, because i´m aware that you know that Brian was responsible for almost everything else on that song.
But here´s again what i said:
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
Of course it does! You keep saying that Roger and John are responsible for 90% of the song and that is not giving credit to Brian. If you want to be accurate you say that John and Roger are responsible for the chord sequence - let´s say 10% - that is featured in 90% of the song. Brian was the guy who gave a direction to that chord sequence, and we don´t know if Brian made some corrections for it to loop perfectly or not.
But even if Brian didn´t touch the chord sequence, he is the man responsible for the other 80% of the song where it was used. He gave it a meaning. Roger and John "only" created the loop - so to speak. Creatively speaking, they´re only responsible for those 10% who then inspired Brian to create almost everything else .[/QUOTE]
Just don´t expect me to use the term "song structure" everytime i´m talking about this same subject on the same paragraph, when it´s pretty obvious for those reading what i am talking about.
As for your recurring advise of "learn how to read" - i´m not bitting it!
A year or so ago i got into a fight with someone here that i later regreted. So, i´ve made a mental note not to go that route again. I´m here to have fun and learn somethings about Queen.
You´re not offending me, but you know what you´re trying to do. It would be more honest of you to just own it, instead of writing long replies with theories about the difference of posts who offend people and those it´s people´s problems.
For you to use your condescending tone and then deny it in a condescending way, it´s pretty disrespectful - not for me - but for the person you´re replying to and all Queenzoners reading your explanation. Maybe in your mind you think it´s genius. If that´s the case, stick to it!
That is the tone of several of your discussions in this forum.
But if several people tell you that you come across as disrespectul in several of your discussions on this board, maybe instead of saying that you´re not here to please everybody, you should take a step back and re-read some of your discussions in other threads.
As far as i´m concerned, this discussion with you it´s over!
The fact that i don´t feel offended, doesn´t mean i´m not aware you´re being disrespectful to me, and i cannot continue a conversation with someone who doesn´t respect me. I don´t do that in real life, i´m not going to do that behind a computer. The only reason i replied was because people are reading, and they deserve to read the explanations for clarification.
dysan
This escalated quickly. Just to clarify - I said 'contributed to' not 'co-wrote'.
Sebastian
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
You´re not offending me, but you know what you´re trying to do. It would be more honest of you to just own it
[/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to offend you. I don't care if you feel offended or not. I simply replied to what you wrote, and I'd gladly do it again. So yes, I *am* owning it.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
But if several people tell you that you come across as disrespectul in several of your discussions on this board, maybe instead of saying that you´re not here to please everybody, you should take a step back and re-read some of your discussions in other threads. [/QUOTE]
By that logic, there have been several people who haven't told me that ... and there have been thousands of people saying the earth is flat.
If I threatened someone or issued sweeping generalisations or insults about someone's ethnicity, religion (or lack thereof), height, weight, skin colour, etc., then I'd be indeed nasty and incredibly disrespectful.
If, on the other hand, I say something like 'saying they wrote the sequence is not the same as saying they wrote the song' and someone thinks it's offensive, it's indeed their problem, not mine.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
As far as i´m concerned, this discussion with you it´s over!
[/QUOTE]
Yet you failed to menion all the allegedly 'many' assumptions I'd allegedly made and which had been allegedly proved wrong by the multitracks. I'm genuinely interested in that.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
The fact that i don´t feel offended, doesn´t mean i´m not aware you´re being disrespectful to me, and i cannot continue a conversation with someone who doesn´t respect me.
[/QUOTE]
Well, no, I'm not being disrespectful. You feel disrespected (which is not the same thing), but I fully agree that you shouldn't continue a conversation with me (or anybody else for that matter) if you believe I'm not respecting you. I'd suggest you took it a step further and simply refrained from reading, let alone replying to, anything I write.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
The only reason i replied was because people are reading, and they deserve to read the explanations for clarification.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the usual 'I'm doing this for the people' superhero talk. Good for you!
You´re not offending me, but you know what you´re trying to do. It would be more honest of you to just own it
[/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to offend you. I don't care if you feel offended or not. I simply replied to what you wrote, and I'd gladly do it again. So yes, I *am* owning it.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
But if several people tell you that you come across as disrespectul in several of your discussions on this board, maybe instead of saying that you´re not here to please everybody, you should take a step back and re-read some of your discussions in other threads. [/QUOTE]
By that logic, there have been several people who haven't told me that ... and there have been thousands of people saying the earth is flat.
If I threatened someone or issued sweeping generalisations or insults about someone's ethnicity, religion (or lack thereof), height, weight, skin colour, etc., then I'd be indeed nasty and incredibly disrespectful.
If, on the other hand, I say something like 'saying they wrote the sequence is not the same as saying they wrote the song' and someone thinks it's offensive, it's indeed their problem, not mine.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
As far as i´m concerned, this discussion with you it´s over!
[/QUOTE]
Yet you failed to menion all the allegedly 'many' assumptions I'd allegedly made and which had been allegedly proved wrong by the multitracks. I'm genuinely interested in that.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
The fact that i don´t feel offended, doesn´t mean i´m not aware you´re being disrespectful to me, and i cannot continue a conversation with someone who doesn´t respect me.
[/QUOTE]
Well, no, I'm not being disrespectful. You feel disrespected (which is not the same thing), but I fully agree that you shouldn't continue a conversation with me (or anybody else for that matter) if you believe I'm not respecting you. I'd suggest you took it a step further and simply refrained from reading, let alone replying to, anything I write.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
The only reason i replied was because people are reading, and they deserve to read the explanations for clarification.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the usual 'I'm doing this for the people' superhero talk. Good for you!
Sebastian
[QUOTE] [b]dysan wrote:[/b]
This escalated quickly. Just to clarify - I said 'contributed to' not 'co-wrote'.[/QUOTE]
That's true and it's a very good point. However, there's no evidence to suggest Straker 'contributed quite heavily' to it. There's a third-party recollection claiming he was there. But there's quite a leap from 'he was there' to 'he contributed quite heavily'.
This escalated quickly. Just to clarify - I said 'contributed to' not 'co-wrote'.[/QUOTE]
That's true and it's a very good point. However, there's no evidence to suggest Straker 'contributed quite heavily' to it. There's a third-party recollection claiming he was there. But there's quite a leap from 'he was there' to 'he contributed quite heavily'.
BETA215
-_-
dysan
Yeah, I'm out of this thread.
Mr.QueenFan
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
The only reason i replied was because people are reading, and they deserve to read the explanations for clarification.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the usual 'I'm doing this for the people' superhero talk. Good for you![/QUOTE]
In a way i did it for selfish reasons, because it gave me great pleasure to deconstruct your replies back to nothing, but i wanted others to see how to handle your manipulative texts.
To the point when you had to missquote me so you could throw the line "learn to read". That´s the only thing you could do!
Here´s just one more thing:
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
If, on the other hand, I say something like 'saying they wrote the sequence is not the same as saying they wrote the song' and someone thinks it's offensive, it's indeed their problem, not mine .[/QUOTE]
Why did i wrote back, after saying i wouldn´t?
Because if you´re going to quote me or express my feelings, at least do it right! Worst than trying to offend a person is to lie about what that person said. I couldn´t care less about what you think of the sequence of TSMGO. Of course, i cared enough to present my view on the matter and proved to you that Roger and John aren´t responsible for 90% of the song structure, even if they´re responsible for the sequence. Because Brian was the one who created the structure of the song, based on a sequence by Roger and John. But you can read back my replies! And we don´t need to agree on this.
For you to turn it around and say that people felt offended by this only shows your strategy in your replies.
The fact that i said i wouldn´t reply to you doesn´t give you the right to lie about me in your next reply.
So, if you were honest, this is what you would have said:
"If, on the other hand, I say something like 'Learn how to read' and someone thinks it's offensive, it's indeed their problem, not mine".
This would be accurate and i wouldn´t care to reply to you again.
And you´re writing in a public forum, so if you cannot take scrutinity to your texts, then that´s your problem, not mine! I welcome scrutinity to my texts. And i´m always willing to learn!
Even when you´re not right, you fight back to the point of being ridiculous. It´s a shame really because i see people stop posting because of your attitude. You pretty much disagreed with every single new thing anyone - not just me! - presented to this discussion, and then you have the nerve to say that Brian is the TSMGO songwriter because he wrote the lyrics?
You´ve had for years stated that John Deacon was the one playing the guitar on "Who needs me", even when there was nothing to support this view. Nothing! For anyone who plays the guitar it was pretty obvious it was Brian, but you´ve made your mind and so it had to be John. That is until Brian said in an interview it was him.
You even got me confused there, because i thought based on your site, that you probably had an official source stating it, otherwise i don´t understand how you got to such a conclusion. Only to find out that it was just what you "thought" happened in the studio.
It´s the same thing with the Peter Straker thing. You think you know what went on in that gathering, and so you know that he didn´t contributed to the lyrics of IGSM. And you know that David Richards didn´t contributed to anything creatively on UP other than playing the piano. You seem to know everything, even when we present sources and base our conclusions on behaviour, you discard everything. That is of course, until some new interview with some official source confirms we were right.
Sebastian, this was clearly a bad weekend for you!
Of all people here, you were the last person i thought was going to become childish in discussing an issue.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
The only reason i replied was because people are reading, and they deserve to read the explanations for clarification.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the usual 'I'm doing this for the people' superhero talk. Good for you![/QUOTE]
In a way i did it for selfish reasons, because it gave me great pleasure to deconstruct your replies back to nothing, but i wanted others to see how to handle your manipulative texts.
To the point when you had to missquote me so you could throw the line "learn to read". That´s the only thing you could do!
Here´s just one more thing:
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
If, on the other hand, I say something like 'saying they wrote the sequence is not the same as saying they wrote the song' and someone thinks it's offensive, it's indeed their problem, not mine .[/QUOTE]
Why did i wrote back, after saying i wouldn´t?
Because if you´re going to quote me or express my feelings, at least do it right! Worst than trying to offend a person is to lie about what that person said. I couldn´t care less about what you think of the sequence of TSMGO. Of course, i cared enough to present my view on the matter and proved to you that Roger and John aren´t responsible for 90% of the song structure, even if they´re responsible for the sequence. Because Brian was the one who created the structure of the song, based on a sequence by Roger and John. But you can read back my replies! And we don´t need to agree on this.
For you to turn it around and say that people felt offended by this only shows your strategy in your replies.
The fact that i said i wouldn´t reply to you doesn´t give you the right to lie about me in your next reply.
So, if you were honest, this is what you would have said:
"If, on the other hand, I say something like 'Learn how to read' and someone thinks it's offensive, it's indeed their problem, not mine".
This would be accurate and i wouldn´t care to reply to you again.
And you´re writing in a public forum, so if you cannot take scrutinity to your texts, then that´s your problem, not mine! I welcome scrutinity to my texts. And i´m always willing to learn!
Even when you´re not right, you fight back to the point of being ridiculous. It´s a shame really because i see people stop posting because of your attitude. You pretty much disagreed with every single new thing anyone - not just me! - presented to this discussion, and then you have the nerve to say that Brian is the TSMGO songwriter because he wrote the lyrics?
You´ve had for years stated that John Deacon was the one playing the guitar on "Who needs me", even when there was nothing to support this view. Nothing! For anyone who plays the guitar it was pretty obvious it was Brian, but you´ve made your mind and so it had to be John. That is until Brian said in an interview it was him.
You even got me confused there, because i thought based on your site, that you probably had an official source stating it, otherwise i don´t understand how you got to such a conclusion. Only to find out that it was just what you "thought" happened in the studio.
It´s the same thing with the Peter Straker thing. You think you know what went on in that gathering, and so you know that he didn´t contributed to the lyrics of IGSM. And you know that David Richards didn´t contributed to anything creatively on UP other than playing the piano. You seem to know everything, even when we present sources and base our conclusions on behaviour, you discard everything. That is of course, until some new interview with some official source confirms we were right.
Sebastian, this was clearly a bad weekend for you!
Of all people here, you were the last person i thought was going to become childish in discussing an issue.
Sebastian
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
Worst than trying to offend a person is to lie about what that person said.[/QUOTE]
Well, you lied about what I said... again, I've only claimed John and Roger are responsible for 85+% of the *chord progression*, not for 85+% of the *song* (even though I do not count bass lines or guitar solos as part of the songwriting process, I count them as part of the arranging stage, but even then, the chord progression is far from being the only thing that counts). So, you've repeatedly lied about what I said.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
Because Brian was the one who created the structure of the song, based on a sequence by Roger and John. But you can read back my replies! And we don´t need to agree on this.[/QUOTE]
The funny thing is, we do agree on that. I've always claimed Brian's the main composer of the song despite 85+% of the chord progression not being his.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
I welcome scrutinity to my texts. And i´m always willing to learn![/QUOTE]
That's a great attitude indeed!
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
Even when you´re not right, you fight back to the point of being ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
No, of course not. I've been wrong many times, and I've admitted so. I've got no problem with that.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
then you have the nerve to say that Brian is the TSMGO songwriter because he wrote the lyrics? [/QUOTE]
Yes, indeed. He's also the main (but not sole, because of the aforementioned chord progression) composer, the main (perhaps even sole) arranger and the main (perhaps even sole) producer.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
You´ve had for years stated that John Deacon was the one playing the guitar on "Who needs me", even when there was nothing to support this view. Nothing![/QUOTE]
Well, there was the fact they were both credited for acoustic. But yes, I was wrong to have claimed that, and as soon as I realised that I admitted it.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
For anyone who plays the guitar it was pretty obvious it was Brian[/QUOTE]
No, not really. Maybe it was obvious for many people, but not for everyone. Fortunately, I realised I was wrong and admitted it, as others probably also did.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
you´ve made your mind and so it had to be John. That is until Brian said in an interview it was him.[/QUOTE]
First of all, I did realise it was Brian *before* he confirmed it, but that's beside the point. There are no authorities in science: if I say something, you're more than entitled to agree or disagree with it, so there's absolutely no sense in your 'you've made your mind so it had to be John.' No, it didn't have to be John ... it was mistakenly thought (by me) that it was John, that was all. It's not like I was forcing you to believe me... or anyone else for that matter.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
i don´t understand how you got to such a conclusion.[/QUOTE]
It was because of the credit and because of John's alleged level of classical guitar playing. At that moment, I mistakenly believed it made more sense for the solo to have been played by him than by Brian, but yes, I was wrong. That's how you reach conclusions, starting from a hypothesis, which could be right (in this case, it wasn't) or could be wrong (in this case, it was).
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
Only to find out that it was just what you "thought" happened in the studio.[/QUOTE]
Yes, of course, and there's nothing wrong with that. Nowhere in any of my posts have I claimed I know for sure what happened. Come on: even those who were there often contradict each other or forget about what happened!
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
You think you know what went on in that gathering[/QUOTE]
No, I don't think I know. Again, you're putting words in my mouth ... my only point is that, based on the evidence we've got so far, it's quite premature to conclude he contributed heavily to the lyrics just because he was there.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
And you know that David Richards didn´t contributed to anything creatively on UP other than playing the piano.[/QUOTE]
No, I don't know it. My point is, based on the evidence we've got, there's nothing to suggest he contributed anything creatively on UP. He might have contributed to its performance (and there I agree with you that his piano does take the song to another level), but there's no evidence to support the hypothesis of him having contributed creatively.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
You seem to know everything.[/QUOTE]
I don't and I've admitted so quite a few times.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
we present sources and base our conclusions on behaviour, you discard everything.[/QUOTE]
No, I don't. I discard what I believe not to be strong enough evidence. Look at the 'high Galileo' thread which started recently: I thought the sped up bit (which wasn't part of the final cut) was Freddie, then someone slowed it down and uploaded it and it was clear that I was wrong and that it was Roger. No need for official sources, just some strong piece of evidence (audio evidence) that made me realise I was wrong, that was all.
There's evidence Straker was there, but no evidence that he contributed heavily to the lyrics. There's evidence David contributed to the performance of UP, but no evidence that he contributed to its songwriting.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
Sebastian, this was clearly a bad weekend for you![/QUOTE]
Not even close. It was a great weekend! I got to catch up with a couple of people whom I hadn't spoken (in depth) for a while, I had a lovely time at work on Saturday, I did a lot of paperwork that'll (hopefully) make this week far easier, I enjoyed some nice books and even got to watch an old film which I'd never watched before and which I was quite curious about. Moreover, I got to be alive, healthy, eat nice food, drink clean water and juice, have access to books, technology, beddings ... which millions of people are not fortunate to get to. It was a fantastic weekend.
Worst than trying to offend a person is to lie about what that person said.[/QUOTE]
Well, you lied about what I said... again, I've only claimed John and Roger are responsible for 85+% of the *chord progression*, not for 85+% of the *song* (even though I do not count bass lines or guitar solos as part of the songwriting process, I count them as part of the arranging stage, but even then, the chord progression is far from being the only thing that counts). So, you've repeatedly lied about what I said.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
Because Brian was the one who created the structure of the song, based on a sequence by Roger and John. But you can read back my replies! And we don´t need to agree on this.[/QUOTE]
The funny thing is, we do agree on that. I've always claimed Brian's the main composer of the song despite 85+% of the chord progression not being his.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
I welcome scrutinity to my texts. And i´m always willing to learn![/QUOTE]
That's a great attitude indeed!
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
Even when you´re not right, you fight back to the point of being ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
No, of course not. I've been wrong many times, and I've admitted so. I've got no problem with that.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
then you have the nerve to say that Brian is the TSMGO songwriter because he wrote the lyrics? [/QUOTE]
Yes, indeed. He's also the main (but not sole, because of the aforementioned chord progression) composer, the main (perhaps even sole) arranger and the main (perhaps even sole) producer.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
You´ve had for years stated that John Deacon was the one playing the guitar on "Who needs me", even when there was nothing to support this view. Nothing![/QUOTE]
Well, there was the fact they were both credited for acoustic. But yes, I was wrong to have claimed that, and as soon as I realised that I admitted it.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
For anyone who plays the guitar it was pretty obvious it was Brian[/QUOTE]
No, not really. Maybe it was obvious for many people, but not for everyone. Fortunately, I realised I was wrong and admitted it, as others probably also did.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
you´ve made your mind and so it had to be John. That is until Brian said in an interview it was him.[/QUOTE]
First of all, I did realise it was Brian *before* he confirmed it, but that's beside the point. There are no authorities in science: if I say something, you're more than entitled to agree or disagree with it, so there's absolutely no sense in your 'you've made your mind so it had to be John.' No, it didn't have to be John ... it was mistakenly thought (by me) that it was John, that was all. It's not like I was forcing you to believe me... or anyone else for that matter.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
i don´t understand how you got to such a conclusion.[/QUOTE]
It was because of the credit and because of John's alleged level of classical guitar playing. At that moment, I mistakenly believed it made more sense for the solo to have been played by him than by Brian, but yes, I was wrong. That's how you reach conclusions, starting from a hypothesis, which could be right (in this case, it wasn't) or could be wrong (in this case, it was).
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
Only to find out that it was just what you "thought" happened in the studio.[/QUOTE]
Yes, of course, and there's nothing wrong with that. Nowhere in any of my posts have I claimed I know for sure what happened. Come on: even those who were there often contradict each other or forget about what happened!
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
You think you know what went on in that gathering[/QUOTE]
No, I don't think I know. Again, you're putting words in my mouth ... my only point is that, based on the evidence we've got so far, it's quite premature to conclude he contributed heavily to the lyrics just because he was there.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
And you know that David Richards didn´t contributed to anything creatively on UP other than playing the piano.[/QUOTE]
No, I don't know it. My point is, based on the evidence we've got, there's nothing to suggest he contributed anything creatively on UP. He might have contributed to its performance (and there I agree with you that his piano does take the song to another level), but there's no evidence to support the hypothesis of him having contributed creatively.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
You seem to know everything.[/QUOTE]
I don't and I've admitted so quite a few times.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
we present sources and base our conclusions on behaviour, you discard everything.[/QUOTE]
No, I don't. I discard what I believe not to be strong enough evidence. Look at the 'high Galileo' thread which started recently: I thought the sped up bit (which wasn't part of the final cut) was Freddie, then someone slowed it down and uploaded it and it was clear that I was wrong and that it was Roger. No need for official sources, just some strong piece of evidence (audio evidence) that made me realise I was wrong, that was all.
There's evidence Straker was there, but no evidence that he contributed heavily to the lyrics. There's evidence David contributed to the performance of UP, but no evidence that he contributed to its songwriting.
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
Sebastian, this was clearly a bad weekend for you![/QUOTE]
Not even close. It was a great weekend! I got to catch up with a couple of people whom I hadn't spoken (in depth) for a while, I had a lovely time at work on Saturday, I did a lot of paperwork that'll (hopefully) make this week far easier, I enjoyed some nice books and even got to watch an old film which I'd never watched before and which I was quite curious about. Moreover, I got to be alive, healthy, eat nice food, drink clean water and juice, have access to books, technology, beddings ... which millions of people are not fortunate to get to. It was a fantastic weekend.
Sebastian
By the way, you still haven't replied to this:
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
And i´m not counting the fact that when the Queen multitracks were leaked you were proved wrong in so many assumptions that it´s not even fun!
[/QUOTE]
Really? Which ones?[/QUOTE]
Let's see them one by one:
*Dust: I was wrong about it being synth-less, and I admitted so.
* Bicycle: Nothing I can think of.
* Bo Rhap: Nothing I can think of. If anything, multi's confirm there are no 180 voices there.
* Brighton Rock: Nothing I can think of.
* C-Lebrity: It does confirm Brian's a far better bassist than I thought.
* Crazy: Nothing I can think of.
* Two Legs: The double-bass, I'd missed that one indeed.
* Don't Stop Me: Nothing I can think of.
* Fat Bots: Nothing I can think of.
* Get Down, Make Love: Nothing I can think of.
* Hammer to Fall: Nothing I can think of.
* I Want It All: Nothing I can think of.
* Break Free: Nothing I can think of.
* Car: Nothing I can think of.
* Keep Yourself Alive: Nothing I can think of.
* Killer Queen: The jangle piano (which I'm now doubting, btw).
* Long Away: Nothing I can think of.
* Now I'm Here: Nothing I can think of. I'd already reported there were piano and organ bits there long before the stems leaked.
* One Vision: Nothing I can think of.
* Play the Game: Nothing I can think of.
* Ga Ga: Nothing I can think of. The bass-line was busier than I'd thought, but I'd already reported there was bass.
* Seven Seas: Nothing I can think of.
* Somebody to Love: Roger's high note that quite a few people thought was a guitar.
* Stone Cold Crazy: Nothing I can think of.
* Tenement Funster: Nothing I can think of.
* Show Must Go On: Nothing I can think of.
* Tie Your Mother Down: Nothing I can think of.
* Under Pressure: Nothing I can think of.
* Champions: Roger's (and perhaps Brian's) backing vocals.
* Rock You: Nothing I can think of.
* Best Friend: Nothing I can think of.
So, out of 31 songs, multi's and stems proved me wrong on six... which means I was still right about 80% of them. Not bad :)
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]
And i´m not counting the fact that when the Queen multitracks were leaked you were proved wrong in so many assumptions that it´s not even fun!
[/QUOTE]
Really? Which ones?[/QUOTE]
Let's see them one by one:
*Dust: I was wrong about it being synth-less, and I admitted so.
* Bicycle: Nothing I can think of.
* Bo Rhap: Nothing I can think of. If anything, multi's confirm there are no 180 voices there.
* Brighton Rock: Nothing I can think of.
* C-Lebrity: It does confirm Brian's a far better bassist than I thought.
* Crazy: Nothing I can think of.
* Two Legs: The double-bass, I'd missed that one indeed.
* Don't Stop Me: Nothing I can think of.
* Fat Bots: Nothing I can think of.
* Get Down, Make Love: Nothing I can think of.
* Hammer to Fall: Nothing I can think of.
* I Want It All: Nothing I can think of.
* Break Free: Nothing I can think of.
* Car: Nothing I can think of.
* Keep Yourself Alive: Nothing I can think of.
* Killer Queen: The jangle piano (which I'm now doubting, btw).
* Long Away: Nothing I can think of.
* Now I'm Here: Nothing I can think of. I'd already reported there were piano and organ bits there long before the stems leaked.
* One Vision: Nothing I can think of.
* Play the Game: Nothing I can think of.
* Ga Ga: Nothing I can think of. The bass-line was busier than I'd thought, but I'd already reported there was bass.
* Seven Seas: Nothing I can think of.
* Somebody to Love: Roger's high note that quite a few people thought was a guitar.
* Stone Cold Crazy: Nothing I can think of.
* Tenement Funster: Nothing I can think of.
* Show Must Go On: Nothing I can think of.
* Tie Your Mother Down: Nothing I can think of.
* Under Pressure: Nothing I can think of.
* Champions: Roger's (and perhaps Brian's) backing vocals.
* Rock You: Nothing I can think of.
* Best Friend: Nothing I can think of.
So, out of 31 songs, multi's and stems proved me wrong on six... which means I was still right about 80% of them. Not bad :)