I would like to hear "Let Me In Your Heart Again" without the autotune added. I do think Freddie was incredible but there's something suspect about some of the top notes on this track, especially when compared to "In My Defence" which was only recorded a shortish time after.
The Circle of Eidolon · Member since
Jazz+ you have waded into this subject as you have so many times before. You do not research the subjects you comment on.
The Circle of Eidolon has read much that has been posted here over many years. We have researched your comments on Freddie Mercury's singing capabilities. Not so long ago you said that Freddie Mercury was the best singer in the world. You claimed he never gave sub standard performances and, in your words, was perfect.
Now Jazz+ you claim that Freddie Mercury never tried to be perfect in the live setting.
The Circle of Eidolon wishes to ask you Jazz+ have you heard of a road called The Stelvio. You will find it in northern Italy. It is a long twisting road that climbs the southern side of the Alps. As long and twisting as this road is it cannot match the number of times you twist and turn to escape the words you have used in the past on your journey.
The Circle of Eidolon has spoken, again we are sure you will miss the lesson, there is no argument Jazz+
Dougie 4 · Member since
While Freddie was alive and singing he didn't buse auto tuned. That people used it afterwards doesn't take away from his integrity.
Vocal harmony · Member since
While they were recording I'm sure that what you hear is Freddies's natural voice. . .
However as someone has already said Live recordings are a different matter, multiple show edited to give the best "live" rendition isn't really true to the live performance. As much as I like Live Killers one really well performed gig may have worked better.
Post Freddie yes autotune is evident but remember that those live recordings are now being heard in a world where so much is made to sound perfect that to some Freddies's place as a legendary singer and performer can only be maintained if he can compete on a level field with so many of the current doctored singers
stevelondon20 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The Circle of Eidolon wrote:[/b]
Jazz+ you have waded into this subject as you have so many times before. You do not research the subjects you comment on.
The Circle of Eidolon has read much that has been posted here over many years. We have researched your comments on Freddie Mercury's singing capabilities. Not so long ago you said that Freddie Mercury was the best singer in the world. You claimed he never gave sub standard performances and, in your words, was perfect.
Now Jazz+ you claim that Freddie Mercury never tried to be perfect in the live setting.
The Circle of Eidolon wishes to ask you Jazz+ have you heard of a road called The Stelvio. You will find it in northern Italy. It is a long twisting road that climbs the southern side of the Alps. As long and twisting as this road is it cannot match the number of times you twist and turn to escape the words you have used in the past on your journey.
The Circle of Eidolon has spoken, again we are sure you will miss the lesson, there is no argument Jazz+[/QUOTE]
Reading your posts is an absolute joy! :-)
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Jazz+ wrote:[/b]
Freddie's vocals were never auto tuned because he was a gifted singer and never needed any false technology to tidy his vocals up.[/QUOTE]
Of course not - because such technology didn't exist during his lifetime.
Instead of using autotune, singers often had to do 20 or 30 takes and the final version was assembled from various takes. Another One Bites The Dust is a prime example (any discerning ear can hear the punch ins in the isolated vocal track from the Rock Band stems). And this isn't limited to singers - many of Alex Lifeson's classic solos were compiled like this by Terry Brown.
It may not be "false" technology, but plenty of times you're not listening to a single take of a vocal on music from the 1970s and 80s. Mercury was a gifted singer, but he wasn't perfect 100% of the time. You're kidding yourself if he never flubbed lines or sang flat in the studio. The technology just exists these days to fix the tiny flaws so that singers don't have to blow out their voices doing 30 takes of a song.
Looking forward to your enlightened reply.
Chief Mouse · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Jazz+ wrote:[/b]
Freddie's vocals were never auto tuned because he was a gifted singer and never needed any false technology to tidy his vocals up.[/QUOTE]
Of course not - because such technology didn't exist during his lifetime.
Instead of using autotune, singers often had to do 20 or 30 takes and the final version was assembled from various takes. Another One Bites The Dust is a prime example (any discerning ear can hear the punch ins in the isolated vocal track from the Rock Band stems). And this isn't limited to singers - many of Alex Lifeson's classic solos were compiled like this by Terry Brown.
It may not be "false" technology, but plenty of times you're not listening to a single take of a vocal on music from the 1970s and 80s. You're kidding yourself if Mercury never flubbed lines or sang flat in the studio. The technology just exists these days to fix the tiny flaws so that singers don't have to blow out their voices doing 30 takes of a song.
Looking forward to your enlightened reply.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Comping is a super common and perfectly normal practice. It's still being done today and it's far better than autotune. Of course, autotune will be used on "singers" who just can't be saved otherwise or to give a particular sound that is so embedded in modern pop, pretty much all vocals you hear on the radio are autotuned a bit even if the particular singer is great, just to give it that sound.
MercurialFreddie · Member since
Well... when it comes to live releases, didn't someone from Led Zep at one point state that only bass was "live" on the live album that they had released ?
When Freddie was around the autotune was being invented, but surely most of Live Killers is overdubbed.
What about Live at the Bowl 1982 ? When it was originally shown on TV in 1982 was the "this locality" line overdubbed already ?
Nitroboy · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Jazz+ wrote:[/b]
Well i think the evidence speaks for itself as no one who has worked with Queen in the recording studios has ever mentioned auto tuning Freddie's vocals ! I think this thread is just bollocks.[/QUOTE]
Or you could take 2 minutes to see/hear the evidence for yourself - but that's your prerogative.
richrich · Member since
@Nitroboy: "Her breasts were bags of meat. Nothing more."
Dougie 4 · Member since
Freddie Mercury was not perfect because nobody who is human is. He had all the human frailties but he over came so many odds to become the great singer he became.
People like me look up to him because he fought through his imperfections to give us great music. Roger Taylor has often mentioned how Freddie didn't have a good command over his voice initially but he worked on himself to improve his delivery. People endlessly debate upon the mistakes he made but miss the bigger picture...an Indian Parsi boy made it big through sheet hard work and determination.
dysan · Member since
It's worth noting that sure some tweaking happens on official releases - fair enough as it is 'product' and that's at the discretion of the producer. Same with the composited 'raw' studio stuff we get released. What happens in the studio stays in the studio. But the real howlers we celebrate are usually tucked away on live audience recordings that we analyse to death. They were one-off shows meant for that audience and we have no idea of the reasons his voice (or brian's guitar) go a bit wonky during the excitement of a show. A rock concert isn't X Factor. Well, it wasn't back then. I doubt anyone at the those shows went home thinking 'wow to totally fluffed that B4'.
Vocal harmony · Member since
Totally agree with both dysan and Dougie 4.
I think the reason that people weren't aware, at the time and some still aren't, and sine just don't think about Freddies's origins was because he was so successful, everything he achieved was a million miles from where he came.
As regards dysan's point about audience recordings, through the years I've seen hundreds of live shows and in the moment caught in the atmosphere of a big show with an up for it audience on the night slightly fluffed notes do go almost unnoticed. It's only when you get the chance to here some audience recordings that you will really here any mistakes or slip ups
dysan · Member since
And lets be honest - we have audience audio of live vocal performances that surpass the studio versions. So I guess it all averages out.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]MercurialFreddie wrote:[/b]
Well... when it comes to live releases, didn't someone from Led Zep at one point state that only bass was "live" on the live album that they had released ?
When Freddie was around the autotune was being invented, but surely most of Live Killers is overdubbed.
What about Live at the Bowl 1982 ? When it was originally shown on TV in 1982 was the "this locality" line overdubbed already ?[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure why overdubbing is in a thread about autotune. They are completely different things.
But yes - the unedited FBG was seen on the MTV broadcast of the Milton Keynes show.
Some of Live Killers is overdubbed, but not all. Just a few vocal lines here and there, but nothing overly substantial. It's not like Kiss Alive where the only thing live about it is Peter Criss.
More info here - http://queenlive.ca/livekillers.htm
And if anyone said that about The Song Remains The Same, it was an exaggeration. There were a bunch of edits and a few vocal overdubs, but it's still 99.9% live Zeppelin - and mighty fine Zeppelin.
