Page 2 of 3
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:23 am
by monkey man
Shooshie wrote:Well, I've been reading about Queen, Mercury, and the gang since I left that message, and I've learned that they overdubbed not just once or twice, but hundreds of times, to create that massive, tight vocal sound. Mercury was particularly adept at it, doing all the vocals in some of the songs, such as Love of My Life, in which his overdubs were astonishing, considering that he does not read music and had no musical training, utilizing complex chords laid down symphonically through his voice. Being able to hold a laser-like pitch is another factor, being able to overdub the same line precisely, making it fatter without losing the pitch. I suppose you could add chorus effects to that, and I'm not convinced that they didn't use choruses, but I don't know what was available then.
Interesting, Shoosh.
Could it be that Freddie and the boys belted the lines out in such a way that minimal compression was needed, and therefore maximal impact was retained?
Could it not also be that an LA2A or similar
was used, but with a slow attack so as to not squash the life out of it?
During overdubs, was it all one part at a time or were they grouped and re-tracked this way repeatedly?
Shooshie wrote:But whatever the technology, sheer talent and ability, along with tenacity, surely was a huge part of those famous harmonies in much of Queen's work.
Shooshie
This surely cannot be denied.
Kudos to Queen.
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:53 am
by Spikey Horse
This reminded me a a song by Ween called 'don't get to close to my fantasy', an intentional Queen rip off (well, a humorous tribute really) with a totally OTT unaccompanied multi layered vocal harmony section that was so in your face and kind of disturbing, so much that it was impossible to maintain a conversation if it was playing in the background.
.... I'd forgotten all about Ween ....
Multitracking vocals imaginatively is such a amazing way to make music - even if you have a rubbish voice you can get great (and bizarre) results - I should know
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:16 am
by bongo_x
I have a recording somewhere of Queen working on building one of those parts, bit by bit. It's very interesting. The individual parts are not that amazing sounding. A lot of them are pretty funny sounding actually, much like what you think it would sound like if you and your buddies stood around and tried to do it. It's really more that there are a lot of them, and the way they blend. It's very much an orchestral effect.
They were an amazing band.
bb
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:17 pm
by timriley
I remember seeing a tv programme about the recording of one of Queens albums... One of those "the making of" programmes. I can't remember which!
Anyway, apparently each of the band members had vocal qualities that complimented each other very well... One of them had a great lower frequency tone, one of them had a great higher frequency tone and Freddie had all the power in the middle. They used to all sing each harmony seperately and then blend them all together as if they were one vocal, or something like that.... 3 different vocalists for each and every harmony!!
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:04 pm
by dougieb
Dang... did anyone check out member StephenTyler's Discography?
http://www.chimera-arts.com/SWT2006colour.pdf
I for one am pretty damn impressed.
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:23 pm
by stephentayler
Tayler, please!!!
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:48 pm
by Shooshie
Hahah.... Stephen, just a little more experience, and you'll be ready for the big time!
Yessiree, bob. Just hang out with us. We'll show you the ropes. (ok, where are those ropes, guys?)
No, seriously, I'm extremely impressed. One-by-one we keep uncovering you monster recordists and artists and grammy nominees... I've been telling people that there are serious folk hanging out around here.
Shooshie
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:53 pm
by bongo_x
Mr. Tayler, that is one impressively diverse discography.
Tommy Bolin, Lords of the New Church, Waterboys and Underworld? If only you could have got them all together.
bb
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:37 pm
by gearboy
Ummm... I just found the "Bohemian Rhapsody" multitracks. Again, I wish that I could post them, but since I don't own them, I can't. But rest assured that they are out there and they clearly display the lost art of 6 pairs of hands on the mixing desk during a mix.
Jeff
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:06 pm
by Shooshie
gearboy wrote:Ummm... I just found the "Bohemian Rhapsody" multitracks. Again, I wish that I could post them, but since I don't own them, I can't. But rest assured that they are out there and they clearly display the lost art of 6 pairs of hands on the mixing desk during a mix.
Jeff
Twister anyone?
That was fun, and I'm not sure that automation is better. Something about everyone using their ears at the same time, and working together toward the same end is just irreplaceable in the mix.
Shoosh
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:59 pm
by gearboy
I can't even imagine mixing this with a mouse!!!
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:07 pm
by bongo_x
gearboy wrote:I can't even imagine mixing this with a mouse!!!
No, his legs would be so short as to be useless at moving faders.
bb
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:21 pm
by gearboy
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:09 am
by dougieb
OMG... that is amazing. This and the Sgt. Pepper - Just goes to show... what you put in definitely makes a difference for what comes out
What what missing from my mix was any decent tea. Not to downplay Stephen's talent on the original, but I found a nice UAD Earl Grey plug-in that really brought this track to life.
Seriously though... what is there barely requires a mix. That is seriously sick unreal stuff. Interesting to dissect this stuff after so many years. Fun gift!
~d
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:00 am
by Douglas Nagel
I noticed that as well, the tracks by themselves, without touching the faders, and maybe just panning them around a bit, gets you a good mix. Just goes to show how much a difference good tracking makes.
Truly amazing stuff.