Talk:Bohemian Rhapsody/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Good Article

Bohemian Rhapsody was recently nominated to be promoted to good article status, but has unfortunately failed. Reasons for failing GA:

• Intro:
  • "It was primarily composed on Freddie's Yamaha baby grand piano." Is not a good sentence, or a whole one for that matter. It doesn't fit in with the other content of the intro, it would be probably better suited in "Recording".
  • Capitilize "Vinyl" of "vinyl record" in the infobox.
  • " However, it was released as a single, and became a huge commercial success." should be merged into the "a capella" sentnece.

• Recording:
  • Fixing the paragraphing! There's stray sentences random floating around.
  • "(a process known as splicing)" No brackets! Prose this into the paragraph.
  • Why is the equipment listed? No lists!

• Structure and analysis:
  • Change the title, it doesn't convey that you're talking about the song
  • This section is actually good, but try to add more information, perhaps a picture of them singing in the a capella?
  • Explain the importance/difference of 7ths/keys/chords to non musicians

• Video
  • Change the title, it's not informative
  • "it cost only £4500 to produce" compare to today's costs, compare between the two.
  • Fix the "visual feedback" link
  • "being double-tracked out of sync" ... which means?
  • Prose both mini paragraphs into one
    • "often cited as "the first ever music promo video"." This should be referenced via inline citation, as well as lots of other things..
    • "Taken literally, this statement is unlikely to be.." Merged this into to the previous sentence.
    • "rather than the BBC's generic dancers." Oh dear, I was wondering when POV was going to show.

• Popularity
  • Clumsy writing
  • "double-A single".. which is?
  • Summarise the success in charts, does anyone care about Dutch taste?
  • Re-organise last two paragraphs into the existing ones

• Trivia
  • Remove TV trivia, they're not very significant
  • I would personally move information about the song onstage to it's own section, mainly because of it's higher significance compared to the other trivia (moving the reference of concerts from the introduction to this paragraph would also be an idea.)
  • "The title does not appear anywhere within the words of the song." This link should be fixed: ie- not the whole sentence

• Cover Versions
  • Clean up and remove POV and useless entries

• References
  • Add lots more
  • Use inline citation
  • Add "URL Last Accessed" Link

• External Links
  • Expand
  • Tidy up

Good but needs a lot of work, Highway 14:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

acapella intro

yeah, EMI's published transcription gives it as mostly 4-part, going to 3 part in places --feline1 21:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

writing credit

It's fairly well documented in various interviews that the writing credits in Queen, for nearly all of their career (up until 'The Miracle' album), reflected merely who wrote the lyrics - apparently they were trying to allocate credits for "Liar", which was an old song from Freddie's previous band ('Wreckage'?), and contained guitar lines written both by Wreckage's guitarist, and new stuff by Brian May - Freddie reportedly declared "as far as I'm concerned, whoever wrote the words has written the song", and May said they stuck to this rule of thumb until 'The Miracle'... ...bearing this in mind, is it not more accurate to state that, although Freddie Mercury formally owns the copyright for authoring the song, that May wrote the music for several of the guitar based bits? (I'd just go ahead and change the article, but don't want to be reverted by Queen fans crying sacrilage ;-) --feline1 13:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got that idea from, nor do I recognize the Freddie Mercury quote that you are alluding to. With regard to songs credited to May and Mercury, those two generally wrote both the lyrics and the melody of their songs. On the other hand, Deacon and Taylor often received musical help from Mercury in particular. In fact, Taylor actually admits that Mercury re-wrote large sections of certain songs for him, such as "A Kind of Magic" and "Radio Ga Ga". However, as with any band (or even when seesion musicians are involved with solo artists), one individual may contribute in some way to another person's song without rightly claiming a songwriting credit.

Brian has stated in many interviews, in particular on the Audio Commentary on the latest DVD/CD release of A Night at the Opera that the song was entirely dreamed up by Freddie.. he even wrote the guitar parts for it.. --Drowse 04:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced paragraph

"Kenny Everett claimed that Mercury told him that the song "was just random, rhyming nonsense", and had no deeper meaning. However Brian May counter-claims that the song reflected Mercury's personality and approach to life."

What is the evidence for "Kenny Everett claimed that Mercury told him that the song "was just random, rhyming nonsense", and had no deeper meaning. However Brian May counter-claims that the song reflected Mercury's personality and approach to life." other than hearsay? - 4.250.xxx.xxx

The claim by Brian May is on the Queen Greatest Hits DVD. Not sure about the Kenny Everett claim, though May does say on the DVD that Freddie would often say his songs had no deeper meaning. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 08:28, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

You'll have to ask user:202.147.84.45 who added it [1]. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 08:42, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

"Shivers down my spine"

The sound effect heard behind this line is not May playing between the bridge and tailpieece of his guitar, it is a bell tree. See the picture at the following website to see what one looks like : http://www.sunlitedrum.com/drums/productpages/BellTree.htm.

On the Queen Greatest Hits DVD May states that he made the sound using his guitar. Evil Monkey∴Hello 20:37, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

on the "queen - off the record" transcription sheet music that EMI published in the 1990s, its says its a "bell tree", but to be honest it sounds more to my ear like May tinkling his strings above the bridge, which tallies with what he says, so I'd be inclinded to believe him! --feline1 06:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Live

I have to ask -- I know this doesn't really have much to do with the article itself -- but how exactly do they do this song live given how it was made? --Yar Kramer 19:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I explained this in the "trivia" bit--feline1 06:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Video and the Title

I couldn't find anybody other than the author of this page who claims that this is the "first music video" in any sense, so I removed the claim to that effect. I also tweaked the subjective interpretation of the title, and toned down the claim that "many" tout it as the "most popular song in the world," which would need some evidence. !melquiades 21:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

There has been a lot of rather woolly thinking and propaganda over this "Bohemian Rhapsody was the first ever music video" thing over the years: clearly it was not the first accompanying promotional film for a single (since ever Queen recorded earlier promo films for their stuff, never mind dozens of other bands!) - what *WAS* a "first" about it was that it started off the practice of a record company providing a promotional video/film for their acts' single release, with the express purpose of it being used on "Top of the Pops" when the act were not available to perform themselves - prior to this, the BBC would play the record and have "dancers" like "Pan's People" perform to it on screen. This was a big sea change and should be noted in the article--feline1 09:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I remember reading in a paper last year that the song got some kind of award or something, "best single of all time". If I found it online, would that be enough evidence? Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 21:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

See-through tape myth

The story about the recording tape coatings being worn off is mythical. While it seems to make sense in the light the existence of poor quality consumer tape with oxide that flakes or wears off, in fact recording studios use high quality tape which incoporates lubricants in the oxide. Just like a vinyl record properly cared for can withstand virtually unlimited playback, studio quality audio tape made by companies like BASF, 3M, or TDK used on well designed professional tape transports will not wear out even under heavy use. Any company producing such tape would have gone out of business. --Blainster 18:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

er, oxide-shedding on certain tape stocks is a well-known phenomenon. Also remember that Queen were near penniless until 1976 - they were recording in down-time with less-than-perfect stuff.--feline1 09:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Almost no bands have any money when they begin recording. The tape and studio time is normally fronted by the recording company, not the band, even if they are billed for it against the record revenues. But my arguments are general and I have no evidence that it applies to this particular situation. Though I continue to think the story is extremely unlikely, it would be un-Wikilike to insist on a change based on my reasons given. On the other hand it is also Wiki practice to provide sources for an article. The story should not be there without a solid reference. --Blainster 16:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

the story has been repeated in interviews by May and Taylor in virtually every book I have ever read about Queen! I've also heard them say it on radio broadcasts. It was basically because they did *so* many overdubbs, the same bit of tape was run over the heads hundreds of time to the point it started shedding oxide.--feline1 15:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! Then supplying a source should be a mere trifle. This webpage [2] describes the digitizing of the "Bohemian Rhapsody" multitrack master in preparation for a surround sound remix, and mentions the common worn tape story, but the master is unspliced and therefore does not confirm the legend. The story is not that the tape was shedding (flaking), but that it was so thin one could see through it. Such tape would not likely produce useable sound. The veracity of a story is not based on how many times it is repeated, but by a quote from someone who was present at the event. If you can find a quote from one of them that would be great. --Blainster 18:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

84?

Something is wrong here. Early in the article, it says the vocals took 84 hours to complete. Later on 84-part vocal choirs are referred to. I doubt this is coincidence - from the rest of the text it sounds like what is really meant is that 84 vocal takes were combined in certain parts? If so, this is not 84-part harmony - it would just be an 84-voice choir, perhaps with as few as 3 or 4 different parts.

Some elaboration on the actual subject of the song would be great too, if anyone knows why, for example, Scaramouche is referred to, or what 'Bismillah' means. The link to the page Basmala is most unenlightening! What does "Galileo figaro magnifico" mean? What does "Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me" mean? Etc. Stevage 16:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Aye. In terms of functional harmony, there's nothing more complicated than a 7th chord. There are sections where there are (say) 3 different "choir parts", each made up of 4 harmony lines, each recorded by triple-track each voice, with is sthg like 3 x 3 x 4 = 36 layers of voices. Maybe in a few brief portions, it overlaps to the extent of giving 84 voices ... then the next bar will be just one solo Freddie... crazy stuff :-) --feline1 19:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, ans: Bismillah is Arabic for "In the name of Allah". a "Scaramouche" is someone who likes to show off in public. and we all know who galileo and figaro are?

Disney song reference

I have removed this:

Some claim that the first minute of "Bohemian Rhapsody" inspired the ending of the song "One Jump Ahead (reprise)" 
from the Disney animated film Aladdin; both are sung by a poor boy character, and both 
have the words "to me" sung on the same notes in roughly the same inflection over the same cadence.

I can't find anything on this on the web that isn't a copy of wikipedia. Sounds like bogus original research. Anyone? --Stevage 03:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If "some claim" then the editor of that section should find them. --malber 04:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Lyrics

There is no discussion of the lyrics in the main part of the article. Could someone add some please? Rhollenton 00:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

To start you all of I suppose, the lyrics make some reference to "A Day In the Life" by the Beatles, Brian has often said that "The Beatles where our bible", and this is evident in the lyrics of Bo Rap. "Momma, Just killed a man. Put a gun against his head, pulled my trigger now he's dead" Shares similarities with "Got up, fell out of bed, dragged a comb across my head", rythmically and in content. As this was the time when Freddie was coming to terms with his homosexuality, some believe this to be his "coming out" song. The killing of the man he mentions being a metaphor for killing the hetrosexual self. "So you think you could stone me a spit in my eyes, so you think you could love me and leave and leave to die" Is seen by some as a rant at Freddies first Gay partner, who left him quickly. There are many other references, metaphors, and the such in the song, but many think it means nothing at all, an attempt to sound epic, when meaning nothing at all. Thats my bit, anyway, Danielofthenorth 13/3/06

Date error in Cover Versions section

In 2006 the Lincolnshire (UK) Massed Strings Orchestra played an orchestral version with over 250 performers.

Well, it's 9th of December 2005 on my callendar, when I'm writing this post. I guess that one of those dates are wrong, and I'm quite sure, that it's not mine.

Association with AIDS struggle

In popular culture this song is associated with Freddie Mercury's struggle with AIDS. I seem to remember reading that this was probably incorrect since the song was release (1975) before the AIDS epidemic (1981). Is there a reason this isn't brought up in the article?--Dbolton 08:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

180 voices

First of all, the "canon" for the number of vocal overdubs in the operatic bit is 180, which I'm absolutely sure it's merely a myth. Let's see what have the queennies said:

- 24th December 1977, Queen For An Hour (interview to the four of them on BBC2). Freddie said that the number of voices was 150 or perhaps 200.

- 1976, Jim Ladd interview with John Deacon. John said voices had been overdubbed "over fifty times".

- 6th November 1999, Radio 2: Roger Taylor said it was 128 voices.

- Brian May has stated several times (haven't got one here at the moment) that it was 180, and that's the number entering to popular culture and the so-called "common belief".

Let's see the reasons why I think it's merely an exaggeration: according to what May said, the way they recorded each line was the three of them singing three times each line. It'd mean 3x3=9, nine voices per part.

The "fattest" harmony in Bohemian Rhapsody is the big "for me", covering a huge spectrum. The highest note (Bb4) is just one voice: Roger's (you can easily prove it separating DTS channels in the new releases). The second highest is just Freddie doing Ab4. The following is Roger doing F4 (Greatest Karaoke Hits version omits the two previously mentioned, leaving the F4 uncovered). The bottom voice (doing F1 in "for") is just Freddie, as you can prove by using DTS mixes too. So, four voices so far.

The rest of the notes involved would be D4 (which would be difficult for Brian to hit but all in all possible), Bb3, F3, D3, Bb2, F2, Bb2. Let's say they all did the three overdubs for that, which would mean that the number of voices would be 7x9=63.

Hence, the total of voices in that "for me" part would be a maximum of 67 (63+4) voices, almost 1/3 of the famous 180 claimed by many.

Well that's nicely reasoned, but I'm afraid also completely wrong :) Because there are bits in the opera section where there's about 4 treble-tracked 4-part harmonies overlap with each other, producing a great level of bounced multitracking than the "for meeeeeee" bit.--feline1 23:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

All right. Let's check that one as well: "Bismilah" is parallel octaves (6 voices tops, because both parts are just Freddie). "He will not let you go" is a three-part harmony, therefore it'd be 27 voices, and "let me go" is thee-part plus one sustained Roger's falsetto: 28 voices. And one single track by Freddie saying "never never never". Therefore: 27+6+28+1=62 voices. Less than "for me", much less than 128, 180 or 200, and all in all they hardly overlap in all sense of the word.

Thank you but WP:NOR. Please locate a source where this myth(?) is discussed. ~ trialsanderrors 08:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Abrupt modulation from Bb to A...

My doubt here is about the first key. It's true that Bo Rhap starts in Bb and all of that, but imo it modulates to Eb for "mamma ooooh". Reasons:

- Eb turns into the centre of gravity - Fm appears and is an important part of the harmony. Fm is a diatonic function in Eb (ii, or relative of the subdominant), while it's an unusual chromatic chord in Bb (iv).

What Freddie did in that song section was to apply sequentially a similar progression (I>vi>ii>V) in two different (alas related) keys, thus having Bb>Gm>Cm>F during "mamma just killed a man..." and Eb>Cm>Fm>Bb during "mamma oooooh...".

Therefore the abrupt modulation would be from Eb to A, not Bb to A.

Hmm, well he kinda drags the whole thing down through a chromatic-ish falling-down-the-stairs type cadence anyways, lasting a bar or so, it doesn#t just "suddenly" modulate from Eb to A.--feline1 22:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello - I think I wrote that bit, and was going from memory of the sheet music, which I don't have access to any more. To me, the A is definitely abrupt, you're playing all in flats, then suddenly 3 sharps come out of nowhere :) If it's not accurate, or whatever, please fix/remove as appropriate. Stevage 18:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The music goes from Fm to Db, which is a relative change, while the guitar solo is still in the same mode, and then the jump to A from Db is a major third — a Coltrane change. I am boldly changing the article. - CorbinSimpson 01:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

How is this "POV"?

Not really very important, but one of the (many) reasons for this article not being considered "good" is the contention that that last part of the sentence "A promo video allowed the artist to have their music broadcast and accompanied by their own choice of visuals, rather than the BBC's generic dancers." is "POV" (ie not neutral). Eh? "generic" is not a pejorative term. This sentance is crucial to to making the point about the "video revolution" BoRhap inaugurated, totally changing the way popular music could be presented on television.--feline1 15:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the person that fails all the Queen articles (you must love me round here :P), so I can probably shed some light onto it. POV stands for Point Of View, which generally means something is biased for one side, which we should try and avoid in Wikipedia. I'll give you a basic "POV?" lesson below:

POV relates to a part (or even worse, an entire article) of an article being biased towards one opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but we shouldn't convey these into our work. Examples of POV are below:

• • "Miss Piggy was later re-designed because the old model was really ugly."
    • An opinion, which taints the article, and takes sides.
    • That's a pretty simple one really, a better version would be: "Miss Piggy's model was later re-designed periodically after The Muppet Movie, coinciding with the death of Jim Henson and his son, Fred Henson not continuing her voicing, giving the role to fellow "muppeteer", Frank Oz."

• • "A little knowm fact is that Frank Oz invented cheese."
    • An opinion, who thinks it is a little known fact?
    • Something you have to look out for, you can do it without even thinking. A better version would be: "Although Vanessa Feltz is heralded for inventing cheese, the success belongs to Frank Oz."
    • Other words/phrases which are overlooked but are in this vein include: "Probably", "here and there", "Sometimes" and "Occassionally" - AVOID THESE WORDS.

Now back to generic, and why it's POV. "Rather than the BBC's generic dancers" is commenting on the versatility/individuality of Pans People, which isn't the point of your reference to them. Good alternatives would be:

• • "rather than the BBC's own dancers."
  • "rather than the BBC's own dancers, used to accompany very different songs, leading to their somewhat lack of distinctive character."
  • "rather than the BBC's personal dancers, who could detract appeal because of their unpopularity with youth."
  • "rather than the BBC's own dancers, who were often tagged with a lack of personality."

Or it may just be me and it isn't POV :P Hope I've helped Highway 22:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was correct then in thinking that you regarded "generic" as a pejorative term. It's not. It's not criticising Pan's People, it's just further emphasising the point that songs they danced to would all have the same ("generic") visual image on the screen (ie women in leotards dancing to it), rather than your band's own visual identity. The point is that having a video meant that band's music could be broadcast with their *own* visuals, not those of a generic dance troupe.

To say

• • "rather than the BBC's own dancers." - doesn't emphasize the lack of the artist's own visuals
  • "rather than the BBC's own dancers, used to accompany very different songs, leading to their somewhat lack of distinctive character." - is too verbose and clumsy when you could just say "generic"
  • "rather than the BBC's personal dancers, who could detract appeal because of their unpopularity with youth." - is barking up the wrong tree - Pan's people weren't unpopular
  • "rather than the BBC's own dancers, who were often tagged with a lack of personality." - again, wrongheaded - viewers loved these sexy ladies LOL - but band's wanted to promote *themselves*, not Pan's People's bosoms.--feline1 23:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

--feline1 23:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I must be normal, leotards.. ew. Anyway, I've fixed all of the notes down to generic that I can do, you need to expand more etc. This is proof that many of my crits are easily remedied, and a copyedit can get rid of a lot of them before nomination. Highway 00:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Remaining Errors

I have fixed a lot of errors with this, the list is down from around 30 to 15, which are either crits on Trivia or more importantly Content Issues. If you can fix these then I think it's ready for renomination (please get a copyedit before you do):

• Structure and analysis:
  • This section is actually good, but try to add more information, perhaps a picture of them singing in the a capella?
  • Explain the importance/difference of 7ths/keys/chords to non musicians

• Popularity
  • Clumsy writing
  • "double-A single".. which is?
  • Summarise the success in charts, does anyone care about Dutch taste?
  • Re-organise last two paragraphs into the existing ones

• Trivia
  • Remove TV trivia, they're not very significant
  • I would personally move information about the song onstage to it's own section, mainly because of it's higher significance compared to the other trivia (moving the reference of concerts from the introduction to this paragraph would also be an idea.)
  • "The title does not appear anywhere within the words of the song." This link should be fixed: ie- not the whole sentence

• Cover Versions
  • Clean up and remove POV and useless entries

• References
  • Add lots more
  • Use inline citation
  • Add "URL Last Accessed" Link

• External Links
  • Expand
  • Tidy up

Since I've editted the article quite a bit, I'd rather not review this again (I don't normally edit candidates, it's easier to judge what the nominee left for you), I'll probably ask User:CorbinSimpson if he'd like to review, he and I have a similar understanding and process. Good luck and ask if you have a problem, Highway 00:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"does anyone care about Dutch taste?" This question is POV (I would say: discriminating...). Do you really think the US and the UK are the only relevant countries in this context? -- Candyfloss 12:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's an offensive, racist, patronising comment actually. And particularly ridiculous considering that the man who wrote the damn song in the first place was Persian, born in Tanzania, and educated in India.--feline1 15:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is on a Queen song, not how mainstream Dutch music taste is! What I MEANT to say was that it's not particularly high priority, while you have a "On Stage" section just sitting, waiting to be made Highway 22:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination and review

Per request, which I have accepted, I will evaluate this article for Good Article Status on or around Friday, April 6. Some things to note:

• Make sure images are tagged. (Done)
• Try to clean up grammar.
• Double-check major points of MoS compliance.
• Check for weasel words and disruptive prose, and fix.

Good luck. I have not really read this article, and aside from one musical note, I have never edited it. Have fun. - CorbinSimpson 01:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Some points re: the intro paragraph:

• Calling Freddie a "rock-pianist/vocalist" is a rather odd way to summarize him. (I don't believe he ever gave solo piano recital concerts ;-) Or only ever played piano as opposed to other keyboards. He also often composed and occasionally performed on guitar. He was carried out record production and arrangement. And is perhaps most famous for his stage performance skills...etc etc). Something such as "rock-musician" might be a more general statement.
• just saying "...THE band Queen" doesn't explain that Freddie was a member of Queen. Perhaps "...his band Queen"?
• Is the term "heavy metal" not anachronistic for 1975? Would it be used by the band themselves? I think they would say "heavy rock".
• The word "touted" is a bit suggestive. "acclaimed as" or "nomiated" or "voted" instead ...?--feline1 09:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your article not mine, good luck Highway 09:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed cover versions

I have removed the following cover versions, as no confirmed details are available:

• The officers in the Royal Navy made a spoof of it while patrolling the Indian Ocean.
• A high school steel drum band located in Pittsburgh, PA, performed Bohemian Rhapsody as the song for their indoor band competitions. The song sounds as though it were the actual song although it is being performed on the steel drums.
• In 2005, the song was covered by Jack Tuesday & the Hundred Dollar Bills, at their live performance in Dover Massachusetts. It can be heard on their album "Live in Dover", which experienced limited release but received high praise.
• USD A Capella did a cover: (purevolume.com/USDacapella).
• Rockapella, an a cappella band, did a version of Bohemian Rhapsody.
• ((It was covered by The Braids as a dance music|dance song.))

-- Candyfloss 21:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

-- Ummmm, you might want to add that Rockapella cover back in. I've got an MP3 of them singing it. It exists. Don't know the source; since, I (ahem) "found" it on the web with Limewire.

100 Greatest Songs from the Past 25 Years

"It has also topped VH1's "100 Greatest Songs from the Past 25 Years" list."

that list only goes back to 1978 bohemian rhapsody was released in 1975

172.131.243.2 01:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

A little harsh on John

Under Cover versions; Bad News ... the line "John Deacon, known for his inability to sing, provided some backing vocals." appears.

John was NOT known for an ability to sing, rather he was known for a weaker voice than the other band members chrisboote 10:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Reluctance to sing" would be more accurate. In fact, I've changed it to that. Regardless of John's actual vocal qualities, he himself clearly felt they weren't up to par, as he steadfastly refused to sing in other Queen material. JRM · Talk 16:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanx, that reads better as well chrisboote 14:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

re-release

Dose anyone know the dates of the 1991 and 1992 re-releases?--Miketm 02:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination

Even though is breaks my heart, it is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia (or anywhere) to include an entire song (continuously or broken up) without paying download royalties - per download. Wikipedia guidelines place the limit at 10% of the total or, in this case, 36 seconds. You will either have to choose just one sample, or create a new sample that best represents the song. But the rest of the article was very interesting (a pleasure to read), and this is one of my favorite songs!--Esprit15d 13:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

Image problems! The coverart image {Image:Bohemian rhapsody single.jpg) and music video image {Image:Bohemianrhapsodyfeedback.jpg) lack either source information or a fair use rationale. This is required to pass 6a) of the Good Article Criteria. You might want to see if any of the notes require references as well. Thanks,Alexj2002 17:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added the source to the single cover (Image:Bohemian Rhapsody.png), I couldn't find a source for the music video screen shot so I've removed it.--miketm - Queen WikiProject - 01:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

GA recommendation

The Trivia section is a bit large. Is there a way to integrate some of the information into the bulk of the main article? Or at the very least fashion a sort of "Legacy in Popular culture" type section and do away with the bullet points. Agne 12:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That was what I was going to note. I've officially listed it as on hold on the GAC list. -- Zanimum 19:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Trivia section has been cut down considerably. — miketm - Queen WikiProject - 18:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Cover versions" section is also a big mess and not needed. A lot of terms such as Bohemian Polka should be moved to the "See also" section and then the section should be removed completely. That is, unless there's a particular cover that's really important. --SeizureDog 18:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

someone keeps re-adding that section and i keep removing it.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 04:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

SeizureDog, I don't agree with you. I think a selection of other recordings should be included in the article. (See also e.g. the Beatles song 'A Day in the Life' which received featured article status.) --Candyfloss 12:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Its list is also much shorter and cleaner though. In any case, I am fine with the new "Selected cover versions" section. --SeizureDog 03:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the cover version should stay also, if it can be done cleanly and concisely. Covers are an important part of a song's legacy.--Esprit15d 12:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Parody?

The opening para states that the song is a parody of a rock opera. This would imply some authorial intent to parody but I'm not sure if that's the case here. Is there anywhere where Queen say that is one of the intents of the song? Yorkshiresky 17:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the WIki page for Parody you will see a definition which covers the use ""any cultural practice which provides a relatively polemical allusive imitation of another cultural production or practice”. In this case, BR certainly is. However, a more precise explanation would serve better. ˜˜˜˜

Reverse Psychology

"But Mercury gave a copy of the single to friend and London DJ Kenny Everett, informing him that it was for him personally, and that he must never play it on air. The reverse psychology worked and Everett ended up playing it on the air, up to fourteen times in the same day."

Does anyone for an instant believe that this was reverse psychology? Everett wasn't a dupe. Mercury gave his the copy with a nod and a wink. They both knew it was going to be played to death. Everett loved the song. Everett even started playing the record with mock fights with himself about how he promised not to play it but couldn't help himself. --Candy 07:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Most sources say reverse psychology.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 09:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify "all sources" please miketm. You see I can't locate any source from the BR page here which makes me wonder ... I see Roddy from southampton, England in a comment on one of the link pages says, "The success of the song was largely due to DJ and comedian Kenny Everett. Everett was a close friend of Freddy's and played the single 14 times in one day on the radio station that he worked for. Freddy also appeared in several of his tv sketches. Everett too, was a homosexual and also died of AIDS years before Freddy." Which fits totally with waht I know (as in I listened to him doing this on the radio). In addition, I will look at my Queen documentaries because I am certain there are some interviews in there which shed more light on this.

[3] the "administrator" writes that " "Bohemian Rhapsody" found an ally in DJ Kenny Everett, who despite promising not to broadcast his exclusive preview copy of the single, played it a reported fourteen times during his two weekend shows on Capital Radio. " Nothing about "reverse psychology".

An alternative tale is told as well, "when the still unfinished track was played for Queen-friendly London radio DJ Kenny Everett, he loved it but felt it could never be a single. “Despite which,” May notes, “he walked out of the studio with the tape without anyone realizing." [4]

[5]

We invited him over, for his professional opinion, and his response was very animated. He said, 'I love this song. It's so good, they'll have to invent a new chart position. Instead of it being Number One, it'll be Number Half!' It was the oddest thing I'd ever heard! So we all went out for an Indian and Ev asked for a copy. We had a reel-to-reel copy but we told him he could only have it if he promised not to play it. 'I won't play it,' he said, winking..." Note that little bit there ... winking. That's not reverse psychology. That is aiding and abetting!

Freddie himself had some doubts as to its potential as a hit single, and sought the advice of his friend, DJ Kenny Everett, sending him a promo copy accompanied by strict instructions not to broadcast it. Kenny knew it was a hit "from the first note", and disobediently played it a reported fourteen times on his two weekend shows on Capital Radio, claiming that 'his finger slipped!" [6]

"The record company leaked the song to a London radio station in order to build anticipation for the album. DJ Kenny Everett played it a reported fourteen times during his two weekend shows on Capital Radio." [7]

So, my contention remains that the "reverse psychology angle" is purely speculative. First of all I don't see it mentioned. Secondly, Wikipedia has the view that I support which is, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_Everett#.22Bohemian_Rhapsody.22".

I await with baited breath for your response :) Candy 12:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

miketm ... was their actually any point in editing your own comment above to change "all" to "most" without having the courtesy to reply to my message? I would have thought that as a member of the Queen Wiki Project you would have been eager to enter into a dialogue to improve the undertanding and accuracy of articles? Candy 05:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant to say "most" the first time. But I was quite tired at the time.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 10:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK miketm, I understand. Candy 10:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Passing

Passed it hold ran out, IMO all of the above issues have been seen to, however try to completely dissolve the trivia section and sprinkle it amongst the other sections, otherwise it's fine

(The Bread 04:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

The name Bohemian Rhapsody

I don't think it's mentioned in this article. Why did they call it this?

Name...

Good point, I just added some comments on the title and origins. Enjoy

Picture

I remember there being a picture of the echo sequence, where did it go and why did the deletor delete it? Davros77 15:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

See "GA on hold."—172.165.18.3 22:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 02:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mamma Mia

This song contains the title of the single that replaced it at no 1 in the UK charts in the lyrics (Mamma Mia). Is it the only song to do this? It says so in the Have I Got News For You 1997 annual, but that's a few years old, so I don't know if it still is. But either way, that's got to be an interesting piece of trivia worth mentioning?

Meaning

The page contains some tantalizing hints about the meaning of sections of the song, woven into a discussion of the musical techniques used in each, but nowhere is there an analysis of what the whole song means. Perhaps, like Don MacLean, Mercury has never said - and is unlikely to do so now. But if anyone knows, or if there are generally-accepted interpretations, that would be fascinating, and this page is certainly the best place in the entire world to put them.

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 05:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Live and let die

The article is about a song and its structure. The fact that its structure is unusual but is reminiscent of another recent hit (live and let die) is plainly relevant. Anyone can hear it if they listen - so the reference is the two tracks themselves. 88888 14:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:RS. It fails all three. Find a reliable outside source that makes the claim and it can be put in. As it is, it doesn't belong. Please remove it. --*Spark* 14:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

-The song does not draw anything from Live and Let Die, though that is a great song. If anything, Live and Let Die draws from earlier, similar Queen works such as Liar and My Fairy King, which bore similar styles. March of the Black Queen from Queen II is often referred to in the fan community as the prototype for Bohemian Rhapsody. There was no inspiration for BoRhap from LALD--LALD switches between the same two musical themes (slow, piano rock and hard rock), whereas BoRhap goes all over the map (like Liar, MFK, and MOTBQ). The LALD reference is incorrect.

-"It may also owe something to the example of Paul McCartney's Live and Let Die (1973) which does something similar." The two songs themselves are NOT a valid reference for this statement. Find a real reference that says this, then get back to us.

Sourced or not, it's a bad comparison. "Live and Let Die" is FAR more conventional than "Bohemian Rhapsody." Its structure is little more than a variant on the standard verse-chorus-bridge structure of most rock songs. (Having the bridge occur after the first verse-chorus is uncommon but not unheard of.) Some elements of the song are a little creative, but it doesn't stretch the boundaries of pop music in any way remotely comparable to BR. marbeh raglaim 22:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Pretentious Original Research

The part which divides the song into parts and describes it is incredibly pretentious and original research besides. I have to run but if I get some free time later today I'll try to fix it up a little.203.131.167.26 02:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Chromatic Bass Line

Under sections it says "The chromatic bass line brings about a modulation to E-flat" I would hardly call that bassline chromatic. I think it should be removed unless someone can justify this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.39.142.240 (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC).