HOME FORUM

Login






Register
Search
List of users


PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS FORUM IS TAKEN FROM PREVIOUS VERSION OF QUEEN SONGS SITE.
Path: Queen Songs - Forum - Song Analysis: Idea for new sectionBookmark and Share

Forum

--- Only registered users can post a message ---pages 1
LG: Idea for new section30 Jan 2004 14:13

I come out with my idea, because I need help from you guys.
This forum is full of interesting (or not well known) information about certain songs. Now, my idea is to build a database called 'Facts & guesses' or whatever divided into discography tree with songs.
Each song would have sort of info box like this:

Queen:
 March Of The Black Queen
    - John sings all the background voices  ....... [ 0% to be truth ]
      [ He said it in 1982 interview with Mr. Bean ]
    - Roger plays his drums ....................... [ 100% to be truth ]
      [ Everybody knows ]

etc.

Well, hope you understand :-)
But I can work out my idea, you'll have to take the role of the submitters, I hope.

Just tell me. And everyone don't stole my idea I've just published! ;o)

1.Sebastian 30 Jan 2004 14:30
Actually I discuss some of them in the (currently unreleased) 4th version of my site. In order to avoid "punishment" I'll work out a different approach in 'Bechstein Debauchery', so your plan can be intact.

So, let's see if I understood:

---------

Dead On Time:

- Thunderbolts come from a storm at Montreux (source: As It Began) ... False (Brian confirmed they are from a storm at France)

is that what you mean?

A friend of mine from is working on a new 'Bijou' database, because the old one has many mistakes (specially guessing the writers of the songs)
2.LG 30 Jan 2004 15:21
Yes, yes, this is the way it could be. There are many information from not well known interviews with producers, frequently mentioned here in SA forum.
But for common people is too complex to read all the articles here.
I think it can be something like "The best of SA forum", if you understand.
Just picked information and replicated in one sentence as a fast with truth value in %.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, the percentage will be very subjective, I know, but information about recordings is theory sometimes, with more or less probability to be truth.

I don't want to set up new discussion. The information in F&G could be qualified as result of discussion here.

Of course, there can be link to any site about explanating material. I don't think it would be good to put a 10 lines of explanation here, but just a short note 'look >here< for the proofs.'.
3.LG 30 Jan 2004 15:24
I see your BD. You have more complex information than I'm planning to put here, just as I wrote the example.
Well, anyway it still depends on you, whether you'd like to write the Fact and Guesses, because I can only fill it from the SA forum as it stays today - you make SA forum to be a forum, not me!

Note: Sebastian, can you correct the link to the Song Analysis on your page? The address is: queen.musichall.cz
4.Sebastian 30 Jan 2004 15:41
What I find somehow ambiguous is the percentage, it's like impossible to determinate.

Your idea is very good, and perhaps my site and this forum (and some articles I'm writing summarising my investigations) are too philosophical, it's be fair to contrast it with a simple "Invisible Man --> Roger, Scandal --> Brian, Action this day sax --> OBX-a synthesiser..." list. Perhaps some fans would prefer that, many people are "far too keen on where and how but not so hot on why"

In that matter probably you should include the "physically proved" facts (e.g. Roger said...), because the more circunstalcial ones ("John could have played 'Who Needs You' because he could play 'Classical Gas' and the fingerpicking technique in CG is ..."), which are perhaps more dense and deep to understand or analyse. The ones who want that kind of explanations can go here.
5.Sebastian 02 Feb 2004 23:46
I think it's fair to start placing the facts. Just tell me if you're going to include the "circunstancial" or "theorical" facts too, or just "Roger/Brian/Freddie/John said..."

So, meanwhile I'll just list the "RBFJ said" things, in chronological order. Additions welcome:

The form of this list (I guess you'll organise it differently but if you want this one no problem) is:

- Statement ... Value (Source)

-----------

QUEEN (I):

- Hangman was written by Freddie ... Fact (Peter Hince)
- Brian played piano in 'Doign All Right'  ... Fact (Brian May)
- Brian used just two guitars for the whole recording: Red Special and Hairfred Acoustic ... Fact (Brian May)
- All the songs of the album except Seven Seas... and My Fairy King were performed live ... Fact (Original setlist from 1972 & John Deacon). * This one is a little objectable since Seven Seas (with lyrics) was in fact performed on stage, and Fred played some parts of 'King' in the piano in 1985

- Liar was written in the guitar ... Fact (John Deacon)
6.LG 03 Feb 2004 09:31
The example you wrote is good, that's the way it could be. I don't think there must be "R/B/F/J said" as primary facts. The Queen II example is what I want, yes.

I can make the engine with form and you will be able to write it directly into new section, not here in this forum. Every single fact can be written separately, so you add something, other's can participate.

I'd rather talk about the form (like the submit form, if you want):

- [contributor]
- [listbox of songs]
- [statement box] [vaue fact/theoretical fact - never beenconfirmed] [Explanation optionally with link]

But I think that other's can participate too, not just Sebastian. I don't want to pull you into some extra work. It's my idea and I need your opinion, whether it worth for the effort.
7.Sebastian 03 Feb 2004 15:10
> I don't think there must be "R/B/F/J said" as primary facts.

What do you mean by that? that we shouldn't include those examples, or that we shouldn't include just those examples, or that we shouldn't consider them facts for the fact they said it (which I agree)?

>The Queen II example is what I want, yes.

In that case I'll leave the percentage to you, I still find it so ambiguous

> I can make the engine with form and you will be able to write it directly into new
section, not here in this forum.

That'd work

> Every single fact can be written separately, so you add something, other's can participate.

It'd be good though to have a "moderator", I'm not belittleing the honesty of the people in this forum but still it's human to have mistakes and perhaps a false quote or something can create a fake legend (if you visit queenzone you can remember some ocassions in which that has happened), and that'd be a huge disservice to the (queen) community. Of course I don't mean I should be the moderator, I just mean there should be one, any of us, most likely yourself.

> [Explanation optionally with link]

Perhaps you (we) should open a separate html page or txt file just with the explanations. Submitting to this forum discussions is not a very direct way to explain the facts/guesses since mostly (specially in my debates with Denes) there are so many facts/guesses discussed at the same time and in many many cases we never conclude.

> But I think that other's can participate too, not just Sebastian.

That's important too. I don't know anything about some interesting not-musical facts (the story behind the album cover or title, etc)

> I don't want to pull you into some extra work.

That's not a problem to me. I'm happy to help.

> It's my idea and I need your opinion, whether it worth for the effort.

Of course it's a very nice idea, and the queen world has been asking for it out loud for a long time. Sites like this or mine are too methodical and bring some long explanations that can bore some visitors. I think there should be an option for everyone, and your section complements our research so well. Sometimes people just want to know "yes" or "no" instead of receiving a full 5 paragraph answer.
8.LG 04 Feb 2004 13:09
> What do you mean by that? that we shouldn't include those examples, or that we
> shouldn't include just those examples, or that we shouldn't consider them facts
> for the fact they said it (which I agree)?

There are some quotes of non-Queen members too, like producers, Freestone, etc, which can be used too. Also there are quotes from magazines, not in direct speech - useful too.

> In that case I'll leave the percentage to you, I still find it so ambiguous

OK, let's forget this feature. I just wanted to summarize the 100% facts and 50% or so 'facts', which came out from discussion here on SA forum. Like you decide "Yes! It must have been this way!", although nobody from Queen ever confirmed or talk about the certain thing.

> It'd be good though to have a "moderator", I'm not belittleing the honesty
> of the people in this forum but still it's human to have mistakes and perhaps a
> false quote or something can create a fake legend (if you visit queenzone you can
> remember some ocassions in which that has happened), and that'd be a huge disservice
> to the (queen) community. Of course I don't mean I should be the moderator, I just
> mean there should be one, any of us, most likely yourself.

There can be sort of admin ofcourse. And I don't care who can do it, you, me, PD. I can be supervising the technical part, but the content would be supervised by somebody else.
Anyway, I don't plan to make it open for subscribing, just few people. Who else than people from here can fill it with information.

> [Explanation optionally with link]

> Perhaps you (we) should open a separate html page or txt file just with the
> explanations. Submitting to this forum discussions is not a very direct way to
> explain the facts/guesses since mostly (specially in my debates with Denes) there
> are so many facts/guesses discussed at the same time and in many many cases we never
> conclude.

Or make one more text area for explanations, as I wanted.

> But I think that other's can participate too, not just Sebastian.

That's important too. I don't know anything about some interesting not-musical facts
(the story behind the album cover or title, etc)

> That's the information which I can subscribe.

> I don't want to pull you into some extra work.
> That's not a problem to me. I'm happy to help.

You're kind.
9.Sebastian 04 Feb 2004 13:49
> There are some quotes of non-Queen members too, like producers, Freestone, etc,

That's a good point. What we should supervise is if that's a "fact" in all sense of the word. Even band members contradict themselves, and I've found several cases in which Ratty (Peter Hince) did too. But some of those quotes really get you out of trouble. A good case is the fact that Freddie wrote 'Slightly Mad'. We have one quote by Brian, one by Roger (very soon in GVHIII I guess we'll have further confirmation from both of them), one by David and one by Jim Hutton and they all point to the same person. I'd like to ask you (either LG or anybody here) as a personal favor if you could write here Phoebe's quotes (from his book) about the songwriters (if there's any...).

> Or make one more text area for explanations, as I wanted.

Another good idea would be a link to a (mini) window in which there's a 10 lines explanation and/or a collection of quotes.

Something else I'd like to ask you is what kind of guesses/facts do you want exactly to be listed there (I guess the "John singing backing vocals of Black Queen" line was just for the example, or are you planning on discussing every single detail?).

I think I can more or less collect three guesses/facts from each song basing on popular internet gossip (aka 'common belief'), and put some confirmation or denying (e.g. popular belief states that Freddie wrote CLTCL in guitar, and I've found some quotes that confirm that in fact he did; on the other hand, common belief used to say 'You Don't Fool Me' was from HS sessions but it wasn't)

One more idea is to have the 50-50 cases explained from both points of view (e.g. a number of reasons explaining why Brian must have played the solo of 'Who Needs You', and a number of reasons explaining it must have been John). That particular debate is not concluded yet and perhaps visitors should have both options so everyone can choose
10.LG 06 Feb 2004 15:21
> That's a good point. What we should supervise is if that's a "fact" in all sense
> of the word. Even band members contradict themselves, and I've found several
> cases in which Ratty (Peter Hince) did too.

Well I thought technical supervision rather than informational (overstrikes of others or whatever).
There are also a lot of information in Crystal stories, but I guess not about recording process.

> I'd like to ask you (either LG or anybody here) as a personal favor if
> you could write here Phoebe's quotes (from his book) about the songwriters
> (if there's any...).

I don't have the book, sorry.

> Another good idea would be a link to a (mini) window in which there's a 10
> lines explanation and/or a collection of quotes.

No problem, that's just the technical point of thing.

> Something else I'd like to ask you is what kind of guesses/facts do you want
> exactly to be listed there (I guess the "John singing backing vocals of
> Black Queen" line was just for the example, or are you planning on discussing
> every single detail?).

Not just the recording facts or theoretical, but everything what is known about the certain song. I mean, it can be filled gradually. No discussion, fact&eplaintation.

> I think I can more or less collect three guesses/facts from each song basing on
> popular internet gossip (aka 'common belief'), and put some confirmation or
> denying (e.g. popular belief states that Freddie wrote CLTCL in guitar, and I've
> found some quotes that confirm that in fact he did; on the other hand, common
> belief used to say 'You Don't Fool Me' was from HS sessions but it wasn't)

Great!

> One more idea is to have the 50-50 cases explained from both points of view (e.g.
> a number of reasons explaining why Brian must have played the solo of 'Who
> Needs You', and a number of reasons explaining it must have been John). That
> particular debate is not concluded yet and perhaps visitors should have both
> options so everyone can choose.

That's good idea, again, I can include it the engine. This is the point where I wanted place the % value :o) Two 'facts' with 50% of truth. It's the easiest example to find, the problem is to find another values for another 'facts', you've been right.

I hope the others will say a world about it here too!
11.Sebastian 06 Feb 2004 16:52
so far this is what I remember about Queen (I):

-------

Keep Yourself Alive:

- Brian recorded the "synth parts" with the Red Special and John's Deacy amp... True.

Brian's quote from 1982: "There is no processing whatsoever on the solo in that tune, as far as I remember. I used John Deacons's small amplifier and the Vox AC-30 to do those little three-part chorus thing behind, as well as the fingerboard pickup on the guitar. There is a bit more tape phasing on the end of that track"

- Brian was never happy with the album version, he preferred the demo... true

Brian (1982): "I have this great belief that the magic of the moment can never be recaptured and, although we ended up with something that was technically in the playing and perhaps even in the recording a bit better than the De Lane Lea thing. I still think that the De Lane Lea one had that certain sort of magic, so I was never really happy. As it turned out no one else was ever really happy either and we kept remixing it. We thought that it’s the mix that’s wrong, we kept remixing and there must have been, at least, seven or eight different mixes by different groups of people. Eventually we went in and did a mix with Mike Stone, our engineer, and that’s the one that we were in the end happiest with. That’s the one we put out. But, to my mind Keep Yourself Alive was never really satisfactory. Never had that magic that it should have had"

Brian (1999): "Before Queen had a record contract, we did a demo of Keep Yourself Alive (in fact, it's still my favorite version of the song)."

- Brian didn't write before hand the guitar parts, he just played intuitively ... True

Brian (1998): "As far as arranging the guitar harmonies, I wasn't that difficult - I was always able to hear in my head what was going to work. As a result, my guitar orchestrations were mostly intuitive and worked out on the spot, such as the harmonized solos on Keep Yourself Alive. It was afterwards that I actually analyzed why a certain arrangement I came up with worked."

-----------------

Doin' All Right

- Brian played piano in the album version (not neccesarily all the parts) ... True

Brian (2003): "For the record, as far as I remember, I played piano on Doin' All Right, Father To Son, Now I'm Here, Dear Friends, Teo Torriate and All Dead All Dead"

- Doin' All Right was the first song Freddie played piano in on stage with Queen ... True

Explanation: When the band signed with Trident Productions the company arranged an important gig at Peasantry Club in London, in November 6th 1972. That wasn't a particularly great concert, but it was historical because Trident Sounds hired a white Bechstein piano, so for the first time in the band's story Freddie played that instrument on stage. That piano would be the same Freddie hired for many future recordings and concerts.

- Brian played a Hairfred acoustic guitar... True

In a 1973 magazine there was an article on Brian (including some quotes from him) and they mentioned in all the album he just used the Red Special and an old acoustic. The old acoustic must be the Hairfred since 30 years later Brian said Dave´s Dilloway acoustic was the one he used in ´Night Comes Down´. In 1982 he had mentioned his unusual acoustic was a Hairfred (and put Jealousy and White Queen as examples).
12.LG 18 Feb 2004 08:29
The 'Facts' section is almost done. you can check it at
queen.musichall.cz

The submit form is done, the list of written facts is just raw, but formatted. I don't know how divide it, maybe like the other sections (discography, etc.) by albums.

So please, just check it and tell what you think about it. I'm leaving on vacation on friday, so I'd like to read your tips at least.

I already wrote two facts there.

PASSWORD is: facts
13.LG 18 Feb 2004 15:00
I see you're filling at the time.
I forget to tell you don't make a fair fill, it's just a beta version.
Anyway, I can use the data you supplied, if you don't have anything against the submit form.
14.Sebastian 18 Feb 2004 15:04
I saw your message when I already had written a lot :). I don't have anything the submit form, it's ok how it is. I think discography is a good way to order it. Perhaps you can put both options (discography-wise and alphabetically)
15.LG 18 Feb 2004 15:21
I wanted to make it more user-able, for ex. you must fill your name everytime this way. But as I see it doesn't matter to you ;)
OK, so this time, it works fine. I like it, to be truthful, the straight and direct information.
If you have ideas on categories or values, let me know, add an item is a piece of cake!
16.Sebastian 23 Mar 2004 14:50
I hope you didn't regret that section. I think it's very useful. I'm writing one right now for my site but I'll try a different approach, more theoretical. Stuff like "were there actually 150/200 voices in 'Bohemian Rhapsody'". That's something you can't discuss with quotes. That way I won't set up a competition with your section. I'll add a link to it as long as you make it avaliable
17.LG 25 Mar 2004 21:05
Surely didn't. But I'm very busy at the time. It's almost done in the way you started it. I had to correct some qotes with wrong character decoding. Don't know how it could have happened.
18.LG 26 Mar 2004 15:16
Any idea for the name of this section? The [facts] sounds too simply to me.
19.LG 30 Mar 2004 22:18
It's online, enjoy. I'll add some information by myself, but who knows when...
20.Sebastian 31 Mar 2004 15:42
Wonderful section, it's excellent for a quick answer
pages 1