Queen's background vocals

flapo1

flapo1

New member
Can anyone give me a hint on how did Queen achieve their incredible, amazing backround vocals?

Here is what I already know about that issue:
a) They were geniously orchestrated
b) They were sung in tune and by great voices

But, what about their recording and mixing tips they used? Anyone knows something about it?
 
The trick is actually quite simple.. It's Layering... in the song "Bohemian Rhapsody", theres about 100 layers.... It's all Freddy as far as I know.... and they probably had a 48 track system and did alot of bouncing around.... Remember The Beach Boys were doing this in the 60's, so there nothing really "genuis" about it...Queen just took it further... But Brian Wilson was the first (I think)
 
Hi, Vox

A few comments:

Yeah, I think too the first ones to do so were the Beach Boys, but IMHO, Queen took a step much further in that sense, with carefully orchestrated arrangements, which is what I think is "geniously" orchestrated (I am mexican and I don't know a lot of adverbs, so I'm not even sure if that word does exist)

So, Is it just bouncing, or did they have some mixing trick or something? Their backing vocals sound so rich and tight...

BTW, it was not only Freddie, at least Brian May and Roger Taylor did sing in Queen. (Remember the "Galileo" falsetto? It was Taylor) :D
 
I have heard that the Bohemian Rhapsody sessions were the first time that two 24 track machines were slaved together,minus one track from each machine for sync left them 46 tracks.
Yes,its just layering.Something about hearing vocal harmonies from the same guy (or close relatives) in various ranges being pleasing to the ears.
I recall George Martin in his book All You Need Is Ears relating how he had the writer of any particular Beatle song track the harmony parts as well as lead,same reason.
Another good layering example is the guitar parts on Def Leopard records.Phil Collen would track DOZENS of rhythm parts and double lead lines also for a very thick wall of sound.
Tom
 
I thought they did that on 16 track, but synched 2 of them up. I could be wrong. I know Dark Side of The moon was on 8 tracks.. They did a lof bouncing though, and of course they had great all tube stuff...
 
Thanks guys for all your replies.

Tom Sholz, the guy from Boston did the same thing with guitars and voices. And of course Brian May with guitar.

I've heard a tale that when the sessions for Bohemian Rhapsody were done, you could actually see thru the tape because of the heavy overdubbing being done, can that be true?

Brian: I h've heard that DSOM was done in a 16 track. And a it had a lot of bouncing, too.
 
I thought they did that on 16 track, but synched 2 of them up. I could be wrong. I know Dark Side of The moon was on 8 tracks.. They did a lof bouncing though, and of course they had great all tube stuff...

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

. . . and Alan Parsons and lots of drugs.
 
I think it was a 16 track, too

At least that's what I heard. It was probably two 16-tracks synched. I could be wrong, though. The story about the tape going transparent is apparently true. After passing over the heads so many times during tracking, some oxide eventually flakes off. I think that this was also the case for the Queen II album, which has an amazing amount of vocal and guitar overdubs as well. Regarding who sings in "Bohemian Rhapsody," it's quite obviously all Freddy in the a capella intro, but Freddie, Brian, and Roger do the operatic vocals in the middle in the places where it's all massed and huge. Some of those parts are all Freddie as well (e.g. "Magnifico-o-o-o-o!," "Never, never, never, let me go - Oh-oh-oh-oh!") RTB also believed in recording WITH EFFECTS; i.e., he recorded the reverb on the vocals and whatnot while they were tracking instead of adding it during the mixing stage. That of course required quite a bit of pre-planning, but then again, it made mixing a little easier.

BTW, John Deacon never sang on any Queen album.

Another trick that Roy Thomas Baker used when recording Queen, Starcastle, the Cars, Journey, etc., was to hit the tape with as hot a signal as possible in order to get that loud but compressed sound. He did that with vocals as well, which helps make them sound bigger. Think of how the a capella vocals sound at the beginning of "Bicycle Race," for example: really loud and in-your-face, even a bit distorted. You'll notice that on a lot of recordings RTB's produced, the drums actually distort quite a bit. Listen to the toms on "Father to Son" on Queen II. (In fact, nearly every song on that album has distorted drums!) I remember reading that he'd have the engineers push the faders up all the way when they were tracking, and the VU meters would always be in the red. The idea was to get a recording that in the end sounded LOUD. That way, it would have more impact when played on the radio. This same mentality exists in the world of mastering, though these days it's been taken to ridiculous proportions.

(I got most of this from an interview w/Roy Thomas Baker from the website artistpro.com)


Bruce in Korea
 
Wow, Bruce!

That was a lot of interesting information about Queen records. I had noticed the slightly distorted sound of their drums in some Queen records, but never thought they made it on purpose.

I'll check the link you mentioned for mor info!
 
Re: I think it was a 16 track, too

overseas said:
Regarding who sings in "Bohemian Rhapsody," it's quite obviously all Freddy in the a capella intro, but Freddie, Brian, and Roger do the operatic vocals in the middle in the places where it's all massed and huge
Click to expand...

Seas, You sir are correct!
Beat me to it:(
 
Bruce -

Do you have the exact link to the RTB interview? I tried to find it on the artistspro site but failed. I'd sure like to read it - Queen are probobly my favourite band, and Roy Thomas Baker's work is absolutley amazing.

Oren
 
You should read "Good Vibrations" It has interviews with some big time producers. The info I have is from skimming it in the book store but I did not have time to really sit down and read, although I might next time I go in. It has an entire chapter devoted to how they recorded Bohemien Rhapsidy <sp? It has some chapters on Pink Floyd and many others. Good stuff.
 
Great thread...

I've always loved the "sound" of Queen's recordings as well as the diversity of the music on each album, especially "A Night at the Opera".

As to recording background vocals, I've read in more than a few places that 10cc's "I'm Not In Love" has close to 180 vocal parts woven into the mix. Given the technology available at that time (P.P.T. - pre Pro Tools), the feats pulled off on some of these recordings are remarkable. Trying to imagine splicing tape to comp a take is a bit beyond me...
 
Last edited:
That clear tape story sounds a little fishy. Sure, all the oxide could flake off the backing under extreme conditions, but if it did, you'd have a blank tape!

Twist
 
You are correct sir; "audio" is stored on the tape in the re-arrangement of the particles in the oxide. This is caused by the fluctuating current passing through the coils of wire inside the head during recording. During playback, the opposite happens. The varying magntic fields stored on the tape induce a fluctuating current in the head, which is then coupled to an audio amp.

Twist
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top