Talk:Queen II/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reviews

Where did the quotes from reviewers come from? They read as badly translated foreign text.--RicardoC 10:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that that is exactly what they were. Thanks for fixing them, Candyfloss. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :-) --Candyfloss 13:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The Loser In The End

Whoever added the technical bit on the song must have cut and pasted it from somewhere else without ever bothering to listen to the song. A kick-starting Hardly-Davidson (not a typo) it is not.

It's a slamming door, for crying out loud.

At 1:09: "All she gets is 'GOODBYE, MA'! *SLAM!*" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.168.84.147 (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. I'm the one who added that kickstart note. It's a translation of my own contribution on the German wiki. You might be right, perhaps we should remove the note as I cannot prove it. On the other hand, it is just a reception and therefore I wrote "it sounds like a ..." and not "it is a ...". Can you prove that it was a slamming door? I've been listening to the song a thousand times during the last 34 years, and, being a sound engineer myself, I recorded all kinds of noises in the past, including slamming doors and Harleys. So I wasn't writing this without thinking. Besides, a starting motorcycle, too, fits in with "Goodybe, Ma", and also with Taylor's love for cars and Harleys. What do you think? Cheers --Suaheli (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are a sound engineer, it does not seem credible that you would be unfamiliar with the sound of a old style plywood interior door being closed. And if German is your first language, not English, then perhaps you should look up the word "context". Given the situation inferred by the lyrics, which sound is more plausible, a door inside a house or a motorcycle outside?

"She washed and fed, clothed and cared, for nearly 20 years And all she gets is 'Goodbye, ma', and the nighttimes for her tears" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.168.70.55 (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, I wrote "it sounds like", not "it is a". It was a description of the noise, not of the object itself. – This noise consists of four equal strokes. In my opinion, these equal strokes come neither from a real kick-start nor from a real door. Perhaps we two at least agree that the noise is supposed to symbolize a "goodbye" (in an agressive way). – Anyway, this is all original research and therefore deleted on Wikipedia. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Cheers --Suaheli (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hammond organ

The article claims Freddie played Hammond on this album? I've been listening to it for nearly 20 years and I've never noticed any! Whereabouts is this Hammond supposed to be?--feline1 16:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be "Loser in the End," which features a growling, obnoxious hammond organ accompaniment. Listen under the guitar solo and towards the end of the song. It's distorted and nasty sounding. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. It could also be a guitar being played through a Leslie cabinet. The vibrato and tremolo of the cabinet is so dominant and the sound source so distorted that the actual instrument is hard to recognise. To me in some parts it sounds like guitar string picking rather than keyboard playing (the attacks are pretty suppressed due to the extreme compressor usage). – Is there any reference anyway? --Suaheli (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That may be...I was only guessing. From listening to a lot of Rick Wakeman's Hammond work with Yes (particularly Yessongs), I took a hammond-loving guess. No reference...but, what is your take on the original question, Suaheli? :) 65.248.164.214 (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I too have always assumed that the guitar work on "Loser in the End" was May playing guitar through a leslie-speaker etc. If I recall correctly, Queen actually delayed the release of the album simply to correct a typo on the album sleeve - so I doubt they would've missed off mention of the Hammond, when piano and harpsichord are listed--feline1 (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If there's a Hammond indeed then I take it it's that said thing in Loser in the End. – I've been listening to the old stuff for more than 33 years and only recently I became aware that there's most likely an organ in Liar and Now I'm Here, to my surprise. I was so used to the idea that they played no keyboards other than pianos. I unconsciously considered all other types of keyboards sort of "synthesizers", haha. Also, they seemed to mention every single instrument on the covers, so why not the organs? Meanwhile I've changed my mind, I guess there's most likely an organ in Liar and Now I'm Here, probability: 90%. In Loser in the End: 50%. – Hard to tell because certain organ sounds can also be made by a guitar with lots of reverb and either with feedback or by scratching the strings with a coin! --Suaheli (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting you should mention that a sound resembling an organ can be made by scratching the strings of a guitar with a coin. It makes me think that it could be possible that it well could be that, due to the fact that (as far as I know) Brian May would play his guitar with a coin. (However, I've mostly heard that he did this because of the sound and not specifically so that he could scratch the strings with it; also, I believe he did this regularly, rather than just for specific songs.) Pippin the Mercury (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Re your initial sentence: I won't mention it, it's original research (prohibited here), secondly I don't think May has ever applied this "organ" technique with the coin. As you already said, he used the coin mainly for other reasons. Primarily for the smacking attack noise produced by the friction between the coin and the string (with the coin not parallel to the string). Best example: Intro of Brighton Rock on Live Killers. It's so beautifully smacking ... wet and juicy ... fantastic! This bright smack couldn't be achieved by a Nylon plectrum. Cheerio --Suaheli (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am so glad that this topic is being discussed in detail. I am glad that there are others who enjoy this band like I do, in this amount of detail; thanks for participating. Queen continues to keep me musically enthralled. Yeah, there's organ in Liar, especially on the "Live At The BBC" version of the song. I love the harpsichord in "The Fairy Feller's Masterstroke" too. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

From 3:06 to 3:07 that mystical "organ" seems to do a gliding note downward. To me it clearly sounds like a guitar making a dive using the vibrato arm. Though there has been Hammonds with varispeed, this glide doesn't sound like an organ. Besides, the sustain of the "organ" tones is not constant like it should be on an organ. And lastly, from the ergonomic point of view, the riff being played feels handier on a guitar neck than on a keyboard. - The bad news is: This is all original research and therefore not really suitable for Wikipedia. Any comments? Cheerio --Suaheli (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

White Queen: Is there a Smile-version, or not?

I took a look at the Website called "Queen - The Royal Legend" (http://queen.musichall.cz). It seems to be that exist a Smile- Version: "There is home demo, done by Smile. It looks to be very rough take and different to the Queen version." (http://queen.musichall.cz/index_en.php?s=de&d=queen2_en)

Ogre Battle

Hi there. – Quote: "Those effects include reversed snare rolls, wild screaming, and a heavily reverbed gong." – Where are those reversed snare rolls? I guess you mean the reversed gong at the beginning? It's the same gong as in the end. By the way, it's not heavily reverbed, that "cloudy" noise comes from the gong itself (with some phaser modulation added). Cheers --Suaheli (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that the whole backwards gong/guitar intro to "Ogre Battle" is in fact the last 15 seconds of the song? That's awesome. I have to try that on one of my home recordings! 65.248.164.214 (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and not only that. The intro (the guitar part) alone is symmetrically structured, too (a musical palindrome). Play the intro reversed, you will hear no difference (the melody goes down, then up; no matter if you play it reversed or not). Or try it with the mid part or the outro, where ever this "hammer part" occurs. If you happen to understand German; I've wrote some lines about it on the German Queen II page. Perhaps I'll translate it some day. Ogre Battle could also be added to the palindrome article. Cheers. --Suaheli (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Revert egregious WP:NOR violations"

Hi Feline1, you reverted some parts of my contributions. I agree that those parts may exceed the tolerance in terms of Original Research. You should have deleted my contributions completely, not just partially. Now the text is worse than before. Consequentially, – and I'm meaning this honestly and without frustration – we should delete all my contributions which go in this direction. You may want to take a look at the history list. Another question is: Articles about song albums are in a different encyclopedic category than, for example, articles about chemical elements are. The former allows more focus on reception, like all articles that deal with music and other arts – as long as they are not presented as "facts" but as receptions (as theories, if you will), that's why words like "perhaps", "may" etc. are important. If you want to reduce musical lemmas, like songs and music styles etc. down to plain numbers like in chemical lemmas, we should delete all musical lemmas. Cheers. --Suaheli (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Suaheli, not only was your material clearly way beyond what is permitted by the WP:NOR policy, it was also written in rather clumsy English. You were right to delete the rest of it. Moreover, speculation is a violation of WP:VER and is not excusable just because you put "perhaps" or "may" in front of it! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a music fanzine. Sorry :) I'm not saying your thoughts aren't interesting, but wikipedia is not the right place for them--feline1 (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. (Not ironically meant.) We should also delete statements containing phrases like:

• "... sound A resembles that of B ..."
• "... X sounds almost like Y ..."
• etc.

99% of the song and sound descriptions in Wikipedia are Original Research. For instance, there's no source for the thesis that song X has "a light-hearted caribean theme", or that the noise in the fade-out almost sounds like a "guitar being plugged in". Are you aware of this? Again, this is not ironically meant. I agree, my contributions are O.R. (see also my post above from 17 April 2008). What's the consequence now? Delete all O.R. in album articles? I would say: Yes. Cheers --Suaheli (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, a lot of the pop music articles on wikipedia are what are often lamented as fancruft and should probably be culled. We can only hope that the Good Editors work harder than the nitwits and help improve the situation! However if you look at WP:DEL you'll see that the excuse of "but if we delete this rubbish, we'll have to delete hundreds of other articles!" is not considered a valid excuse.--feline1 (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well, if you have the courage to delete my OR, why don't you delete the other editors' OR as well? (Don't say you're lazy, that would be unfair.) --Suaheli (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Because wikipedia has millions (?) of pages and like most editors, I only have a few hundred on my watchlist, and I don't even read every edit made to those, and editing is something I simply do in scraps of spare time. The idea is that, on average, with hundreds of thousands similar editors, quality of articles will tend to increase... fingers crossed :)--feline1 (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You've been watching the Queen II article and talk page for years. Here you deleted my ORs only, having the other ORs right in front of you (for several years). I'm not refering to the millions of pages out there, but just to the few examples in this small area here. Your excuse is lame. – Anyway, I just wanted to check whether the guy who deleted my contributions is a gentleman or just a ... – Best wishes --Suaheli (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You're just trolling now. Behave.--feline1 (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Behave" he says. Oh dear. --Suaheli (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Is "Father to Son" Considered A Heavy Metal Song?

I was just wondering?--Tim, 13 September, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.63.99 (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No wonder they regarded the music press as wankers

Here is what RS has to say about it

"Queen is a reasonably talented band who have chosen their models unwisely. On "Side Black," they venture into a lyrically muddled fairy-tale world with none of Genesis's wit or sophistication. They've also appropriated the most irritating elements of Yes's style — histrionic vocals, abrupt and pointless compositional complexity, and a dearth of melody. "Side White" is quite an improvement, containing many of the same muddled tendencies, but with the saving grace of timely and well-chosen power chords and some rather pretty tunes. But the album remains a floundering and sadly unoriginal affair."

Ken Barnes sounds jealous.

John Deacon on acoustic guitar

The introduction of the article says that John Deacon plays acoustic guitar as well as bass on the album, as does the albums liner notes. But some wise guy still finds it funny to delete the acoustic guitar from the "Personel" section in the article. Please stop doing that. 20.02, 1 October 2009 (DRF) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.186.252.183 (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Y'all just keep disrespecting Freddie, don't you?

I take issue with a part for the Fairy-Feller's Master Stroke track that says "'Quaere' has no reference to Mercury's sexuality, according to Taylor". First, there is absolutely no source for Roger allegedly saying that, second quaere is not pronounced "queer", as anyone who listens to the song would know, so no way in hell would this have anything to do with Freddie's sexuality, nor would it cause someone who hears the song to think that. Someone made that up just as their way of reminding the reader that Freddie's gay without being conspicuous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.139.29 (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1