dysan
But what is your hunch why it's there? That's my question :)
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Thistle
I don't know how else to explain this and genuinely don't get what you're not getting. I'll try one more time.
- Does A Capella involve instrumental accompaniment? No.
- Can we hear instrumental accompinament on this supposed A capella track? Yes.
- Is it therefore an "A Capella"? No.
Why is there music on the track that they've called "leakage"?
Scenario 1 - They could have used the vocal only track from any multis that exist to create an artificial "A capella". Maybe some instruments leaked and are therefore present on the vox track. They can't filter it out. So it's a fake A Capella and they're using the "leakage" line as an excuse.
Scenario 2 - My gut feeling is wrong, and It's not an artificially created "A capella". It's a natural take, with Freddie using music for guidance as he lays his final vocals down. However, as he's using music, it's still not A Capella.
Doesn't matter how the music got there. The fact of the matter is - it's NOT an A Capella.
Nothing convinces me that scenario 1 is wrong.
That's really the best way I can put my point across mate. I think it's straightforward enough.
- Does A Capella involve instrumental accompaniment? No.
- Can we hear instrumental accompinament on this supposed A capella track? Yes.
- Is it therefore an "A Capella"? No.
Why is there music on the track that they've called "leakage"?
Scenario 1 - They could have used the vocal only track from any multis that exist to create an artificial "A capella". Maybe some instruments leaked and are therefore present on the vox track. They can't filter it out. So it's a fake A Capella and they're using the "leakage" line as an excuse.
Scenario 2 - My gut feeling is wrong, and It's not an artificially created "A capella". It's a natural take, with Freddie using music for guidance as he lays his final vocals down. However, as he's using music, it's still not A Capella.
Doesn't matter how the music got there. The fact of the matter is - it's NOT an A Capella.
Nothing convinces me that scenario 1 is wrong.
That's really the best way I can put my point across mate. I think it's straightforward enough.
dysan
Sorry yes it does sound like I'm being obtuse - and I do get it. I think it's simple enough - those are the vocal tracks as recorded on the final track and they've muted the instrument tracks totally, but you can hear the music coming from the headphones as he sings his overdubs. You say it's faked? How so. I think that's my question. Like they reduced the backing track digitally or something?
I agree that it's not a true acapella, of course. However its presented like that on the set and I don't really have an issue with it having headphone leakage - if it's called acapella (IE instrument tracks have been muted) I guess it's just a game of track labelling. I'm not sure 'Acapella with headphone leakage', or 'very quite backing track version' crossed anyone's mind when compiling. I guess that is if you don't believe that explanation in the notes.
Anyway, this thread made me get the set out today (it's a very Sunday thing to get out and have a listen to it) so job done. Now to get it back up to the attic :(
I agree that it's not a true acapella, of course. However its presented like that on the set and I don't really have an issue with it having headphone leakage - if it's called acapella (IE instrument tracks have been muted) I guess it's just a game of track labelling. I'm not sure 'Acapella with headphone leakage', or 'very quite backing track version' crossed anyone's mind when compiling. I guess that is if you don't believe that explanation in the notes.
Anyway, this thread made me get the set out today (it's a very Sunday thing to get out and have a listen to it) so job done. Now to get it back up to the attic :(
Golden Salmon
It's an "a capella" version in the same sense that last year's NOTW tracks from disc 2 were "raw sessions".
Thistle
[QUOTE] [b]dysan wrote:[/b]
Sorry yes it does sound like I'm being obtuse - and I do get it. I think it's simple enough - those are the vocal tracks as recorded on the final track and they've muted the instrument tracks totally, but you can hear the music coming from the headphones as he sings his overdubs. You say it's faked? How so. I think that's my question. Like they reduced the backing track digitally or something?
[/QUOTE]
I know it's not deliberate on your part, and my lack of knowledge of how the studio works and my inferior grasp on technical terms doesn't help.
You're getting closer to getting me, but not quite. I'm not saying they digitally removed the backing track. I'm saying they only used the vocals (which would have been put down on separate tracks) and tried to mislead us by calling it an A capella - like he actually did do this as a special A capella take. It was never an A capella.
As the vocals were laid down, the instrumental tracks might have leaked to the vocal tracks. But this just means he was using music for guidance, and again this means it wasn't A capella.
Whether they could have digitally removed that to make it sound more convincing, I'm not sure. I reckon it's just lazy and they've deliberately called it something it's not. It's filler. We didn't need it, but they wanted it to sound like they had something interesting. They didn't.
Take any of the multi-tracks that are available. Mute the instrumentals and see what you're left with. Then kid yourself on that what you've got is an exciting "take" that no-one else has. Or release it as a "never heard before rarity". That's basically what they did here.
[QUOTE] [b]dysan wrote:[/b]
I guess it's just a game of track labelling. I'm not sure 'Acapella with headphone leakage', or 'very quite backing track version' crossed anyone's mind when compiling. I guess that is if you don't believe that explanation in the notes.
[/QUOTE]
I don't believe them! I think they're full of pish! ;)
[QUOTE] [b]dysan wrote:[/b]
Anyway, this thread made me get the set out today (it's a very Sunday thing to get out and have a listen to it) so job done. Now to get it back up to the attic :(
[/QUOTE]
LOL, glad it got you listening. Just rip the best of the set and you'll never need to bring it down from the attic again....that is if you get it back up there ;)
Sorry yes it does sound like I'm being obtuse - and I do get it. I think it's simple enough - those are the vocal tracks as recorded on the final track and they've muted the instrument tracks totally, but you can hear the music coming from the headphones as he sings his overdubs. You say it's faked? How so. I think that's my question. Like they reduced the backing track digitally or something?
[/QUOTE]
I know it's not deliberate on your part, and my lack of knowledge of how the studio works and my inferior grasp on technical terms doesn't help.
You're getting closer to getting me, but not quite. I'm not saying they digitally removed the backing track. I'm saying they only used the vocals (which would have been put down on separate tracks) and tried to mislead us by calling it an A capella - like he actually did do this as a special A capella take. It was never an A capella.
As the vocals were laid down, the instrumental tracks might have leaked to the vocal tracks. But this just means he was using music for guidance, and again this means it wasn't A capella.
Whether they could have digitally removed that to make it sound more convincing, I'm not sure. I reckon it's just lazy and they've deliberately called it something it's not. It's filler. We didn't need it, but they wanted it to sound like they had something interesting. They didn't.
Take any of the multi-tracks that are available. Mute the instrumentals and see what you're left with. Then kid yourself on that what you've got is an exciting "take" that no-one else has. Or release it as a "never heard before rarity". That's basically what they did here.
[QUOTE] [b]dysan wrote:[/b]
I guess it's just a game of track labelling. I'm not sure 'Acapella with headphone leakage', or 'very quite backing track version' crossed anyone's mind when compiling. I guess that is if you don't believe that explanation in the notes.
[/QUOTE]
I don't believe them! I think they're full of pish! ;)
[QUOTE] [b]dysan wrote:[/b]
Anyway, this thread made me get the set out today (it's a very Sunday thing to get out and have a listen to it) so job done. Now to get it back up to the attic :(
[/QUOTE]
LOL, glad it got you listening. Just rip the best of the set and you'll never need to bring it down from the attic again....that is if you get it back up there ;)
dysan
RIght got ya! Yeah I think it's just an honest thing they thought 'oh this is cool' like so many of their misguided bonus track releases. I guess it was either that or another Living On My Own remix :D
Thistle
[QUOTE] [b]Golden Salmon wrote:[/b]
It's an "a capella" version in the same sense that last year's NOTW tracks from disc 2 were "raw sessions".[/QUOTE]
Yip. Those are Frankenstein versions for sure. The big difference is that ithey're actually something of interest, not just the single versions with the instrumentals on mute ;)
I wish they'd stop tamepring with stuff though. Release it as is - we'll lap it up anyway! Don't dress it up as something it isn't.
It's an "a capella" version in the same sense that last year's NOTW tracks from disc 2 were "raw sessions".[/QUOTE]
Yip. Those are Frankenstein versions for sure. The big difference is that ithey're actually something of interest, not just the single versions with the instrumentals on mute ;)
I wish they'd stop tamepring with stuff though. Release it as is - we'll lap it up anyway! Don't dress it up as something it isn't.