|
Post by brightonrock on Mar 12, 2023 0:01:29 GMT
Hello. I have a small question that has come up and I would like to solve it here.
Some Queen songs, such as Another One Bites The Dust and Hammer To Fall, are released with a slight change in pitch after recording. If you actually listen to the live recordings, you will notice that the pitch is different from the album because they are played in regular tuning.
What is the benefit or purpose of such a technique? And I am not familiar with other bands, so I would like to know if there are any songs other than Queen that adopt this kind of technique.
Also, the pitch change in this case excludes songs like Rock It in 82, Live Forever in 86, and Somebody To Love in late QAL, where the key is changed only for live performances to make it less difficult to play and sing.
|
|
Lord Fickle
Global Moderator
Posts: 20,294
Likes: 7,102
|
Post by Lord Fickle on Mar 12, 2023 0:18:31 GMT
Good question. It does seem rather illogical to change the pitch of a studio recording, when they're going to have to play it differently live.
|
|
dysan
Ploughman
Posts: 299
Likes: 430
Member is Online
|
Post by dysan on Mar 12, 2023 8:55:55 GMT
Adjusting the speed of a studio recording is a just another studio technique that bands can employ, like adding reverb or EQ. Bands can overdub separate elements at different speeds to change the feel (guitar solos are a good example - see 10CC's Rubber Bullets) or totally backwards so when they're played back at the normal speed / direction you get new sounds. It can breathe life into a tired sounding recording or give a kick up the ass to a fast song (Sheer Heart Attack). The problem is, once played back nudged up a couple of percent, there's rarely any going back because the 'proper' version now sounds sluggish It can be used to change the tone of something, see Hammer To Fall. In this case, who knows, maybe they just judged it was too fast as recorded and though it had more kick a touch slower. Another case in point: AOBTD. This was already using a different sound to capture a vibe (dry drums) so speeding it up might have been used to make them appear even dryer and even more crisp like the stuff the song pastiches. Most likely to get it deeper into the disco BPM. It can also be used as a tool to fit songs onto the playing time of a format. There is a Sparks CD which contains their first 2 albums. About 4 songs at the end of the second album were sped up so it would all fit! The problem is, that every version since has now used those sped up masters. D'oh! I think it's fine for an artist to use this trick when chasing their vision. It's interesting to hear things back at the correct pitch, but I'd never replace the sped up (or slowed down) master as the that is what the artist wanted. It's like making version of songs without the naff 80s keyboard. A nice 'what if' alternative, but by definition, not how the song was envisaged. I think the problem is modern when people are able to point this stuff out, like look at a CD's waveform or make their own adjustments That said, aside from those Sparks examples, the only tracks I prefer the slowed down versions of are a couple of early Suede singles. Metal Mickey and Animal Nitrate gain a 'swing' when played 3% slower at 'as perfomed' speed. While the familiar sped up versions gain some glammy squeakiness, they lost some beef. Other examples: There's not many songs on Bowie's Hunky Dory or Ziggy Stardust that haven't been sped up at some point. Largely, he employed it slightly differently though. Best illustrated on his 'previously unreleased' version of All The Young Dudes. For decades this was only available in a version which was played back for mastering at the normal speed, but because Bowie cut his vocal over it when the backing track was sped up, the version you can buy has his vocals on it erroneously slowed down because it's been played back at the normal speed. Another Bowie example: His cover of The Who's Anyway Anyhow etc on Pin Ups has his vocal purposefully slowed down to sound deeper like Roger Daltry. Like I say, it's just a thing that artists use to get the sound they want. So anyway: In brief, can be used to achieve a variety of objectives. The live thing is doesn't bother me and it a separate point really. Bands tend to play songs differently live. Changing the pitch of a song in performance, usually dropping it a tone or two, is useful for an aging singer I get the irony that this post about speed up recording should also have been sped up to get it's point across quicker
|
|
oreno
Ostler
Posts: 246
Likes: 307
|
Post by oreno on Mar 12, 2023 10:32:05 GMT
Speeding up or slowing down backing tracks is (or was in the days of tape) pretty common I think. Now they can change tempo digitally without changing pitch. It's scary what they can do now..
The Beatles did it a lot - the backing of Rain is sped up (and makes a big impact). Strawberry Fields was famously 'varispeeded' (as it was once known) to combine two completely different takes. And Lucy in the Sky's vocal was sped up too, giving Lennon's voice an odd timbre. Not sure about the backing track. Anyway the 'Revolution in the Head' book is good on this.
It's always a weird effect on a vocal though, more a special effect than anything. Bowie as mentioned used it a lot in the 70s. Apart from LOTG and Leroy Brown, I can't think when else Queen used it.
In the end, speeding or slowing the backing track is about making a better 'record', about changing the feel or sound of the performance. As for live, I get the feeling Queen (and probably most bands) play almost everything faster than recorded, which again is simply about changing the feel.
|
|
Lord Fickle
Global Moderator
Posts: 20,294
Likes: 7,102
|
Post by Lord Fickle on Mar 12, 2023 11:01:14 GMT
As for live, I get the feeling Queen (and probably most bands) play almost everything faster than recorded, which again is simply about changing the feel. That happened a lot in the 70s, which is why I loved the energy of those classic live albums so much, but it doesn't seem to be the case these days. I guess it's because there's so much programming with lights and other visuals that they basically have to perform the tracks more or less as they was recorded. Bit of a shame, really, as a lot of modern live albums just sound like the studio versions with added crowd noise.
|
|
|
Post by 85guild on Mar 12, 2023 16:58:08 GMT
Can't find it but Rooger mentioned it was always to give the song more energy. '39, Long Away, Who needs you were all sped up with '39 going up a half step, the other two just a little bit so if playing guitar you'd have to tune a little sharp.
|
|
|
Post by brightonrock on Mar 12, 2023 20:52:39 GMT
Thank you very much. I see that just as changing the key changes the mood of a piece, pitch adjustment is something of a technique employed to change the sound and feel of the performance. It is true that Hammer To Fall seems to have a bit of hardness added by this method.
The same is true of '39. I play guitar sometimes, but to play that intro in the key of G# on a guitar in regular tuning was impossible without a capotast. So I can assume that it was in the live G key when recorded and released a semitone higher later.
In the case of this song, is Brian recording his singing voice against the semitone raised sound source? I don't know the reason why Freddie was given the vocal duties for the live performance, but if it was assumed from the beginning that the vocal duties would be divided between the live performance and the album, I think that for Brian, the key of G# raised by a semitone was suitable for his voice. On the other hand, for Freddie, the key of G was a good match.
In recent gigs after Freddie's death, Brian sings in the original key. There's an argument in the public's mind that using a capotasto is unseemly (I don't think a guy as good as Brian would care about that...), and it's odd to have a guitar in a different tuning for this song, as he did with Fat Bottomed Girls, but I think it's a good idea to use the same tuning for this song. If it's a little difficult to sing, but you can sing it, that's fine. In the first place, the song should have been written with the guitar in the key of G in the composing stage.
If the vocalists for the live performance and the album had been the same, it would have made sense that the change in pitch for this song was to change the atmosphere of the performance. However, this is not the case with this song, so I wondered if the difference in the optimal keys for each of Brian and Freddie had an effect.
Of course, my story is only a layman's view, so I may be off the mark. So I am happy to hear your interesting interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by fireplace on Mar 12, 2023 22:07:26 GMT
It's a lot easier to both sing and play '39 in G, capo's are workable but you lose a tiny bit of sustain and the 12-string used for the live version is murder to tune even without a capo. The capo will only make it that much harder. So my guess is: G# was the desired pitch and speed, G made it easier for Brian to sing. Tuning an acoustic a half step up or down in a studio environment is no problem whatsoever, so this must have been about the vocal. If you know beforehand you're going to speed it up it makes sense to play the original recording just a bit slower to end up at exactly the right tempo after speeding up the tape.
|
|
|
Post by manymilesaway on Mar 13, 2023 9:45:37 GMT
It depends on the instance, I don't think there's a "one size fits all" type explanation.
Yes, it's used as an effect for many songs, but surely the fluctuation of speeds aren't an intentional effect on Live Killers.
|
|
|
Post by brightonrock on Mar 19, 2023 22:59:56 GMT
As for live, I get the feeling Queen (and probably most bands) play almost everything faster than recorded, which again is simply about changing the feel. That happened a lot in the 70s, which is why I loved the energy of those classic live albums so much, but it doesn't seem to be the case these days. I guess it's because there's so much programming with lights and other visuals that they basically have to perform the tracks more or less as they was recorded. Bit of a shame, really, as a lot of modern live albums just sound like the studio versions with added crowd noise. This is a bit off topic, but I want to talk about this topic because you mentioned something interesting. A shortened version of "Seven Seas Of Rhye" was first performed on the 1984 tour, and this version continues to be used to this day. It was a very pleasant medley that seamlessly connected the outro beat directly to "Keep Yourself Alive". However, I feel that this shortened version has not worked well in recent concerts. youtu.be/iOjBC8PIbFkI would like you to watch this video. There is a short pause before Brian starts to play the riff. My personal opinion is that it would be cooler if the pause was filled in and the song flowed seamlessly from the SSOR rhythm as it did in the past, and a shortened version of the arrangement would work. However, there is a big switch in lighting at the timing after the TMD. So I began to think that Brian may have waited for that and started playing the intro. Your story was interesting to me because I have not had this idea of the need to work with the stage set up in recent gigs. As I felt during their European tour last year, I have always thought that the main reason for the loss of the old vigor in their performances in recent years is their old age. I am convinced of the various problems when I think of the need to design a visual performance. (Of course, you are probably right that old age is the cause...) I've seen this discussed in other threads, but I guess in a way it may be inevitable that they have been playing with almost the same setlist for the last 10 years.
|
|
Lord Fickle
Global Moderator
Posts: 20,294
Likes: 7,102
|
Post by Lord Fickle on Mar 20, 2023 0:01:55 GMT
I'm afraid I don't know enough about the audio visual technicalities of a modern live concert to be able to comment with any degree of expertise, so I've no idea if that approximately one second guitar chord has anything to do with syncing with the show lighting.
I think it's relevent that as they get older, musicians might slow down a little? Maybe Brian's fingers aren't quite so speedily dexterous as they were forty years ago, and perhaps Rog would run out of puff playing a ten minute version of Stone Cold Crazy, but I think they still perform with remarkable vigour and vitality for guys of their age.
I think my main point was to do with video screens and other visual displays. If they're performing with the backing of visual effects, they must need to play in sync with the visuals, so the songs need to be played at the correct timings, and I suppose this also applies when using programmed audio alongside the live performance. I guess this is why a lot of bands use clicktracks these days.
All of the above might be total rubbish, but it seems a reasonable train of thought to me. 🙂
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on Mar 21, 2023 5:59:20 GMT
Good question. It does seem rather illogical to change the pitch of a studio recording, when they're going to have to play it differently live. There are so many reasons why tape speed was manipulated back then, both aesthetic and out of necessity. No Quarter is an excellent example. It makes it sound even darker. And then there's Strawberry Fields Forever, because it ended up being a combination of two takes that were recorded in different keys. Geoff Emerick is a genius for making this happen with analog technology in 1966.
|
|
|
Post by straycatbeatles on Mar 23, 2023 20:16:40 GMT
|
|