How do they do it?

Roger's voice is the high, "Galileo."

Let's just simply take into consideration the fact that both Roger and Fred drive us wild with their voices and thus make us consider all these things which ... apparently, we have a tussle trying to figure them out.

Can't we settle this while singing along to Bo-Rhap or something? Have fun! Everything is so serious. (The jargon is killing my brain -- no more school, pleeeeeease.)

Agh. I give up -- continue your "who-has-the-bigger-range" competition. It's rather funny to read.

I think Seb has some good ideas, and I also think he contributes well in Queenzone, but I really do think that most of his problems stem from a basic understanding of the English language.

Seb: Would I be correct to suggest that English is your second language?

The reason I ask this, is that you seem to be unable to distinguish between the literal and figurative, and you always appear to use figurative expressions to make literal points, and anyone familiar with English would know this is not the case.

EG: "157 Synthesisers in Fun In Space... perhaps he just threw that line and a random number to parody the "no synth" mark of the first five queen albums."

Most native English speakers would immediately know that this is a joke - it is a solo LP - as opposed to a Queen, no synths LP - and would not take it seriously, and would certainly NOT use this evidence to back up a "Roger used 150 synths" claim.

Likewise, Brian could have been suggesting that Roger sang higher than Freddie on Bo Rhap (which he did). We can hear this with the naked ear on the "original" release, or better still on the 5.1 recordings.

Finally, as a long standing Queen-fan, I have read literally hundreds of books, listened to hundreds of interviews, and also many unreleased demos. From that I can distill my information, and sometimes, I find that evidence does contradict itself.

What I suggest for you is that you need MORE research, based on a broader and wider reading of the subject material, because, although what you say seems good, it still comes across as a "Survey of one" type of study.

Nice revival of old topics.

I grew up learning both English and Spanish at the same time... the FIS incident was more a matter of "not having anything better to do than searching the slightest line and discussing it"; I admit I'm often very annoying with those things, though I'm working on that and I suppose (rather than know) that you can tell easily by the posts I used to write in those times (the "how do they do it" era) and the ones I wrote in Autumn '05. I think (rather than ensure) I'm more open-minded in this moment. Of course there's a lot more to work on, I've never denied that.

Enough of my bios anyway, and, not intending to argue with you whatosever, I find it extremely unfair from you to judge me just because of that incident. A misunderstanding can happen to virtually anybody in any case. Then if tomorrow I misunderstand a line in Spanish (which has happened A LOT to me, especially lately that I hardly ever speak it) would it mean that I don't know it either?

Your point about Rog singing higher than Fred in Bo Rhap makes sense, but the fact I didn't point it out doesn't mean I "can't" understand figurative speech. Remember the old "track/take" confusion I had which was merely a matter of misreading or even - I admit - some sort of bias: we weren't exactly in the best terms in those days, therefore - again, I admit - I was predisposed in favour of controversy... those were the days of "Queen II in 4-tracks" and all of that.

Thanks for the reply Seb, but that's not really what I mean.

You obviously grasp that I am not arguing with you, and you also seem to know that there is no animosity in my mail - but I just sometimes get the feeling that you miss the whole underlying point.

I did not mean to revive old arguments, or suggest that you are not open minded.

All I wanted to say was that I think, sometimes, you take things too literally, too rigdly, when in truth, I think people talk in looser terms.

For example, when John Deacon says, "WE sang backing vocals", I do not see that as a literal truth to support the fact that John sings on that track, rather, I feel that it is meant to be taken more loosely, (ie: WE - QUEEN THE BAND - sang backing vocals, and therefore Deacon does NOT sing on the track).

It's like Wayne Rooney saying "We scored four goals", when, in effect, Mr Rooney scored none - but that does not make him a liar, or his statement misleading.

Therefore,what seems like a contradiction in terms, is NOT in itself a contradiction.

But I ramble. I do not mean to pull you up on single words, or misinterpretations, but I do think you miss the bigger picture, (the spirit if you like), because you get hung-up on minute details which really do not demonstrate evidence - one way or another.

This is not a negative mail. This is not a complaint. Just a request to sit back, and relax a bit, and to try and see things from a number of different viewpoints, (then make a decission)other than the solitary (sometimes shakey) fixed positions you seem to frequently enjoy.

> All I wanted to say was that I think, sometimes, you take things too literally

True, but it doesn't concern the understanding (or not) of a language. It's a simple matter of interpretation.

> you get hung-up on minute details which really do not demonstrate evidence - one way or another.

I agree with that part; even if I've never intended to claim I "own" the truth whatsoever, I just feel quite lazy to write "in my opinion" at the beginning of every line :). All in all, I'm aware my messages usually can come across very strongly and mordacious (and just for the record it doesn't mean I can't speak the language, it's more related to individual personality) and I'm trying to correct that as much as I can.

> This is not a negative mail.

Not taken as such, don't worry.

> This is not a complaint.

Ditto.

> Just a request to sit back, and relax a bit, and to try and see things from a number of different viewpoints

Again, and harking back to the old times, something we'd both agreed on then was that you can't sense the tone by reading an internet forum. Your line makes me realise that perhaps you (and/or many other people) may interpret what I write as a "superiority" claim when, obviously, it's not my intention.

> (then make a decission)other than the solitary (sometimes shakey) fixed positions you seem to frequently enjoy

Once again, you're taking this the wrong way, but it's much more my fault than yours. But no, I'm not that stubborn (especially nowadays). All I say is: nothing is excluded.

Hooah.

Someone (Brian or Roger... don't remember) said he heard John sing Another One Bites the Dust to Freddie when he was first selling them on the idea. And that it was pretty awful.

Guys I love this topic! I'm not a musician and can't understand everything that's being discussed but I think the choir parts are one of the best features of Queen. Thanks to Sebastian and everyone else for your comments.
I think one of the absolute best Freddie choir performances is The Prophet's Song. Can anyone tell me something about it, like, is it just Freddie who sings it?

Thank you

Fairy

The first half of Prophet's Song canon is just Freddie, then Roger and Brian join.

Thanks Sebastian! I'll listen closely and try to spot them.

On the recent Bo Rhap dissertation for BBC Radio 4. one of the contributors states that Roger could sing over an octave higher than Pavarotti could. He also stated that to do so is probably illegal !