Behind the scenes in studio, how did Queen record songs? myths and truths

Was Queen a very productive band when it cameto the amount of songs brought to studio time. With each album from Q1 through to Innuendo. Was there much in the way of material left over and was there a difference between queen as a combined creative force Q1 (seperate songs but a joint collaberation) and TM Innuendo vs QII-AKOM as a individual songwriter.. Could there have been more albums in the tank?

I know when they were making dead on time, Paul Prenter gave Freddie cocaine and speed so that he could sing so fast.

[QUOTE] [b]OhioMustapha wrote:[/b]

I know when they were making dead on time, Paul Prenter gave Freddie cocaine and speed so that he could sing so fast.[/QUOTE]

However he did a good job on Stone Cold Crazy without Prenter. .

[QUOTE] [b]fras444 wrote:[/b]

Was Queen a very productive band when it cameto the amount of songs brought to studio time. With each album from Q1 through to Innuendo. Was there much in the way of material left over and was there a difference between queen as a combined creative force Q1 (seperate songs but a joint collaberation) and TM Innuendo vs QII-AKOM as a individual songwriter.. Could there have been more albums in the tank?[/QUOTE]

Only the band know how much material was left over.

But as with most artists, the best material tends to be the material they release. And sometimes songs are revisited later, like Sheer Heart Attack and We Are The Champions.

They always keep the best material for a rainy day i think.
just look at "let me in your heart again" a great track which was finally released and is a great track but unheard for years. I think in time "i guess were falling out" may see the light of day!

It's not a great track at all. It's a lacklustre track with great singing and great guitar playing, that's it.

Lacklustre i dont think so, if that was the case Brian John and Roger would not have worked on that track at all.

Why? Would the universe implode? Was there any contractual obligation they were under that strictly forbade them from working on lacklustre compositions?

[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]

It's not a great track at all. It's a lacklustre track with great singing and great guitar playing, that's it.[/QUOTE]

...which is still a hell of a lot better than Man On The Prowl.

Far from their best, it's still a pretty good track with a lot more of the "classic" Queen sound than much of what they churned out in that period.

But considering how similar it was to It's A Hard Life and is definitely the inferior of the two, I can see why it was left off the album.

Well it may have been left of the album but in my opinion it was a huge mistake to do that. "Man on the prowl" had roots of Crazy little thing all over it, but it was very boring.
"Let me in your heart again" was a brilliant track and with the ultimate Queen trade mark about it. Freddies vocals were awesome too.

I think there's probably quite a few covers in the archives, stuff from the 50's, 60's and 70's from bands they grew up with, even if it's just warm up songs rather than anything intended for release..

I've always heard WHITESNAKES "here i go again" in that song.

It doesn't lack luster, but it's certainly not very good. Many better "inspired by" copies like "KPTOW", "breakthru"

Ultimately the writer of the song had the last word as to what he wanted, so with Bohemian Rhapsody Freddie had the last say. We all know Queen bickered and fought in the studios and as Freddie once said "were the bitchiest band in the universe darling" !
______________________
[url=https://run2.online/run-3]run 3[/url] online

"considering how similar it was to It's A Hard Life"

Really? I'd have called it an up-tempo Save Me if anything!

Hard Life had too many Freddie-style direction changes, sort of like a song-length version of the ballad bits of Bohemian Rhapsody.