Mother Love (Baboolal mix)

You know what it is? I just don't like being singled out and told that I just pissed on their favourite song. Because, at the end of the day, everyone who has contributed mixes here in the past has done this in one way or another.
That was my reasoning for you to also say the same about any other mix that does the same with that particular song. Why should I have to take this harsh criticism and yet no other? Bit of discrimination in that way of thinking, don't you think? I did state that I changed the ending entirely and that should've been a warning sign if you hold the song in such high regard.

And we're back at my original thought. Why should I be singled out in all this remixing malarky?

I suggest that in the future, you take any people's opinions in this section of Queenzone with a pinch of salt and possibly even ignore it entirely.

Peace,
Adam.

John S Stuart wrote:

No Adam - no need to put it back. I can always listen to the Queen original!

The point of mixes is that they're not like the original, therefore, you'd have something new and different to listen to if you wanted. Hence why I asked. The original is the original. Someone's remix is something different. An alternative.

What struck me immediately was the sound quality.. even in MP3 form, being improved. I can't say what it is really.. just a cleaner, more pleasing sound than the original (In my opinion). Freddie's vocal even seems improved somehow. And the little added sounds here and there were tastefully done and provided a nice surprise after having heard the original countless times. Then I thought the instrumental section came into the mix beautifully and the sound quality matched seamlessly. The final ending parts were so interesting as to keep me wanting more and wondering what I'd hear next..

So to sum that up, it simply sounds better overall, has nice unexpected touches throughout and it accomplishes what it sets out to do. Technically perfect in my opinion, nothing to indicate that it wasn't "professionally" done. And I can not complain about anything missing from the original.. since that was the whole idea! It's supposed to be missing something, as was requested.

I've always felt that MIH was a bit too loud for its own good. That perhaps dynamically it suffered for being so loud. The 2001 remaster waveform shows that they reduced the volume a bit.. it's chopped to a uniform level straight across. This actually might be an area where you would disagree with me Adam.. but I hear a sort of flatness throughout most of the original album. The instrumental mixes we've heard from the tracks actually sound better to me (especially IWBTLY.. hearing the karaoke version really blew me away and I instantly loved the song much more than I did originally). And I hear the same sort of improved sound in your mix here. Maybe others don't even notice it.. or maybe I'm crazy, but it's more pleasing to my ears than the original. Comparing them now I find that I'm right.. the muddiness is gone in your mix and Freddie sounds so much better. Am I nuts? :)

So that's where I'm coming from. I see John's point about the meaningfullness of everything in the original... but I disagree that seemingly the whole idea is ruined by the exclusion of a couple things. On the contrary, I think the song still works when the listener is left hanging, expecting perfect closure but instead it just sort of slips away... if I was the philosophical type, I could argue that the point is made either way. Actually this might be an interesting topic elsewhere, but I've always wondered how others felt about the choice to put the track early on in the album, rather than a more obvious position nearer to the end...

The way I see it, we aren't going to have anything new from the Freddie years for awhile, so if fans want to manipulate things, try out different ideas.. what does it hurt? To me, the heart and soul of Queen is the 15 studio albums and nothing can change that. Some songs may be considered sacred territory, but in the end, they're all just as disposable as tissues, right? If someone wants to give it a go removing the opera section from Bo Rhap.. good for them! The original is still there...

I think John's comments can probably be summed up simply by saying "I don't like the idea, but it's technically good". So try to look at it that way Adam :)

Edit: It took me so long to write this that a few new posts have appeared since, so forgive any oversights..

Lord Fickle wrote:

...and I like the use of the eYe instrumental section, particularly the guitar at 4:31, (from It's A Hard Life?), and the ethereal ending, although I have to agree with JSS to some extent, in that the removal of the baby crying, does somewhat detract from the essence of the track, but I realise you have done as was requested.

Splendid work, Adam. :)

Adam Baboolal wrote:

Thanks Mi-Lord! You know this is the second time someone has said they hear something that doesn't actually occur in the mix! I find this fascinating. I didn't add any guitar, though to tell the truth, I almost added some harmony stuff near the end. But I couldn't. I wanted to leave things as they were. A clear-cut ending with minimal additions to the song.

So, where's that guitar bit from? I know I've heard it before, and it's bugging me!

Adam Baboolal wrote:

You know, I might have to add-in the Goin' Back and Baby thing now. I never realised I'd get this much agro for it! In fact, the baby was in there. But then I remembered the request and took it back out. Hmm... whadya think? One with and one without for download?

I think by doing that, you might as well call it a 'remastered' version of the original track. Then you'll get other complaints. I know, I've been there and got the t-shirt!

Well, ya see, I didn't add any guitar bits at all. The only obvious inclusion would be the piano track parts. And they only appear at start, middle and end. The rest are just little vocal bits and bobs here and there.

I listened at the 4:31 point, but I only hear the guitar Brian originally recorded for the song. Maybe you've never heard it as clear as that before? Freddie's vocal is usually way high at that bit for the "out in the city" part.

Peace,
Adam.

Yeah, of course it is. Hadn't really listened to the eYe mix much before.

In Fred's own words (concerning WATC, not Mother Love - but still a valid point) he considered his songs to be disposable, and with WATC he used to wonder why no one had written something to replace it.

On a technical level, this remix is marvellous. And I absolutely love the instrumentation at the end.
I feel no harsh slap in the face with the removal of the baby cry, or whatever. You weren't trying to rip apart the message of the song, you were just taking out a sound effect that someone wanted to have taken out. If I recall, you didn't take any lyrics out did you? Well then - the message is still there!

In a slightly unrelated question : I wonder why they didn't put song snippets in Track 13? Many many Queen songs were done in the right key, and most of these have elements (some subtle, some not-so) that would've been quite appropriate. Odd.

And also -
What period did 'are you running?' and 'fab!' come from? They're heard at different parts of Track 13 (for the uninformed).
Fab sounds like latter day Fred. But that's all I can think up.

nice 1

Zebonka12 wrote:

If I recall, you didn't take any lyrics out did you? Well then - the message is still there!

Ahh, but it's not just lyrics which make a song, it's the whole package. What if Love Of My Life had been recorded to the music of Stone Cold Crazy? Wouldn't have been quite the same message, would it? :) In Mother Love, the baby crying is as intergral a part of the song as the lyrics.

Now, there's an idea for a remix! :) :)

Zebonka12: Try listen to the lyrics of "One Vision" by Queen. It's very Martin Luther King and equal rights and all that sort of stuff.

Then listen to the exact SAME lyrics by Leibach. It changes the song from a humanitarian "Live Aid" type track - to some Hitleresque Nurembourg rally nightmare.

Same song. Same lyrics. Two completely different "messages". As suggested above, the meaning of any song - is only partially arrrived at by the lyrics. To have a "soul" - you have to take on board the whole package.

As far as I'm concerned, there's been too much hoo ha made about this change. Fact is, these kind of changes happen in every single mix posted here. I just don't want to read anymore on this subject of THE change... that was made. Please...

There's no need for anyone's work here to be scrutinised in the way John did so. It doesn't help and in fact in the last 8 years of making music, theatre or film and getting comments on the work, etc. It was the first time that I felt somehow verbally abused. That's never happened to me before and like I said, no-one deserves that kind of response. I couldn't take anything from what John said apart from that he didn't like what I did and thought I was wrong to do it. No-one needs those kind of reponses.

Peace,
Adam.

Adam - I will make this my final point.

I have not abused you. I have made no snide, disrespectful or negative comments about you or you good character. There is absolutely NO personal content in my mails.

True, I did not like your mix - but that is a very seperate debate, and as far as I am concerned, I have concentrated on that debate only, and I still keep both issues seperate. Please do not try to tag them both together.

As to my reply to Zebonka12, anyone who has heard both versions of the "One Vision" I refer to, will undoubtedly conceed, that although the lyric remains untouched, both versions are diametrically oppossed. (I suggest that if you have not done so, you find yourself a copy of the Leibach version. It is well worth the effort).

My point is that you CAN indeed change the whole meaning of a song - WITHOUT altering the lyrics, so this leaves his point without substance.

Finally, I have a right NOT to like your mix, and more to the point say so. That does not invalidate your creative processes, nor detract from your individuality. But the point is, you are (using as your base) the very familuar work of others. If you want to be REALLY creative, why not work on your own material?

You see, if as an author I was to write a "new" Sherlock Holmes or Mary Poppins - then obviously, I would deserve the "flack" from those die-hard fans if I was to write a graphic sex scene into each. This is because none of the original works did so - and to try and write as Conon-Doyle under such conditions, could be seen as both cheap and gimmicky.

However, if I was to write my own novel, with a Holmes-like hero called Constantine Cottages, or with a nanny called Fanny Fatflapps, no one could criticise me under those conditions.

I know that my point me be lost, but, if you are working with "iconic" material - then expect flack if it appears that your mix is disrespectful or misses the point.

Again, you will note that I have not said a negative word against Adam - I have kept all my points to the mix only, and I hope you see that I have treated your personality - and your mix as two seperate things.

John S Stuart wrote:

I have not abused you.

See, you can't say that. My words on reading your reactions in this thread have left me feeling like this:

-It was the first time that I felt somehow verbally abused.-

You can't tell me how I feel about your comments. But I can. If someone creates something, no matter how insignificant, they're still making something from their own creative mind. Not everyone can separate themselves from their work.

John S Stuart wrote:

True, I did not like your mix - but that is a very seperate debate, and as far as I am concerned, I have concentrated on that debate only, and I still keep both issues seperate. Please do not try to tag them both together.

They're one and the same to me because, that's where this came from. From your comments and reactions to the mix. That's the basis for all this. And as explained above, the mix and I are connected.

John S Stuart wrote:

As to my reply to Zebonka12, anyone who has heard both versions of the "One Vision" I refer to, will undoubtedly conceed, that although the lyric remains untouched, both versions are diametrically oppossed. (I suggest that if you have not done so, you find yourself a copy of the Leibach version. It is well worth the effort).

And yet again, one of your analogies that have nothing to do with anything here, come up. Comparing a cover of One Vision with the original track in this thread?? Nay, this part of the forum. My mix is compiled from the original track and bits and pieces of few other Queen tracks. Its content couldn't be any more different! Regardless of lyrics and music being intact, or not. The feeling is totally different and can't be avoided. Keep these things within the subtext of what happens here, i.e. mixes of Queen/related material.

John S Stuart wrote:

My point is that you CAN indeed change the whole meaning of a song - WITHOUT altering the lyrics, so this leaves his point without substance.

Again, this means nothing, because of one thing - the recording and vibe surrounding it.

John S Stuart wrote:

Finally, I have a right NOT to like your mix, and more to the point say so. That does not invalidate your creative processes, nor detract from your individuality. But the point is, you are (using as your base) the very familuar work of others. If you want to be REALLY creative, why not work on your own material?

What the heck are you on about? I never said you couldn't have an opinion, did I? No, I didn't.

God only knows why you went on about creativity because you don't actually know me. Why not work on my own material?? Who says I haven't? Assumptions like this have no place here because the whole point of this part of the forum is... anyone? Oh yeah... FAN MIXES! Therefore, my "own material" doesn't exactly count here, does it?

John S Stuart wrote:

You see, if as an author I was to write a "new" Sherlock Holmes or Mary Poppins - then obviously, I would deserve the "flack" from those die-hard fans if I was to write a graphic sex scene into each. This is because none of the original works did so - and to try and write as Conon-Doyle under such conditions, could be seen as both cheap and gimmicky.

Another analogy that has no place here. Who's writing anything new here? Has anyone written something and passed it off as Queen? We're adding and taking away as fans who wish to do something with the Queen catalogue. If you don't like these kind of things, why listen at all?

John S Stuart wrote:

I know that my point me be lost, but, if you are working with "iconic" material - then expect flack if it appears that your mix is disrespectful or misses the point.

You know why

I think its Wonderful

On the example of putting LOML lyrics to Stone Cold Crazy - it's a valid point, but one that does not apply here. The music wasn't actually changed (for the body of the song that had the lyrics). That part remains touching.

I don't really see how the remix could be seen as emotionally bereft though. I think the end is emotional but conveys a different feeling. The old ending was like a sort of backwards journey. I don't know what Adam was out to achieve with his version, but to me it sounds more of a lament. Well not so sad as a lament... hard to explain. If you ask me that's a good thing - who wants boring WORDS to spell it all out anyway?

Heh.

My point is, Zeb, that it's not just the lyrics which make up the song. You made a comment above that seemed to say that as the lyrics haven't been changed, it's OK. What I am trying (badly) to say, is that the lyrics are only PART of the song. With some songs, it doesn't matter all that much, but with ML, the entire sentiment is that Freddie is going back to the protection of his Mother's arms, and the unconditional love that only a Mother has for her Son. It's in this way he hopes to find peace "before I die". The "going back" segment signifies this perfectly. It's a closure. To remove it, kind of leaves things open ended, unfinished, lost, if you like. Just my opinion.

Again, this isn't criticising Adam or his mix, but perhaps the idea behind it, for want of a better explanation. ML contains the very last breath that Freddie recorded, and as such, even though that segment hasn't been altered (in fact, Adam has made it sound slightly better), the song itself (although, I have to admit, not one of my favourites) is held almost in reverence by many fans, and to change it would seem, in many ways, to be treading on sacred ground.

For what it's worth, I do think this debate has got slightly over-heated, and there are quite clearly undercurrent personal differences at work, so without wishing to appear above my station, can I suggest, without prejudice, we cool it for this thread, and treat the mix as any other, rather than taking things too personally?