Talk:Bohemian Rhapsody/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Introduction

Article states that the introduction is a "close 4 part harmony". I have all 24 of the master tracks from this song, and whilst the intro does start off with 4 harmony voices, its later branches off to at least 5. It's difficult to hear, so I may be mistaken. What I guess I'm trying to say is where is the source for the "4 part harmony" information? 114.77.25.218 (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wessex

According to http://www.queenconcerts.com/london.html#wessex Wessex Studios was never used to record Bohemian Rhapsody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.161.121 (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This raises a problem with reliable sources. Sound On Sound is considered a reliable publication. How does the website to which you link a reliable source? Who is the author? What are their credentials (affiliation with the group or professional journalist)? What is the source of their assertion that the studio was not used for BR? Going by the standard of the website, its author may very well be correct, and it is far from unreasonable to think that a professional journalist in a professional magazine can be inaccurate. However, Wikipedia must consider the reliability of sources. The JPStalk to me 18:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Objective: FA

I'd like to try and get this article to FA standard, and have been doing a lot of work on it in the past few days, following a request for a peer review I put in about a week ago. The comments we received I have pasted below, and as I complete tasks I will strike through the relevant sections. Anyone wishing to help out should do the same.

  • The lead should include mention of the songs prominence in "Wayne's World" as well as discussion of live performances of the song. These are subjects in the article not explored in the lead. An article of this length could easily have a three paragraph lead.
  • The lead also has a lot of phrases like, "it is considered..." Take care when using terms like this, they can be construed as weasel wording. I know it's in the lead and there are licenses you can take in the lead, but I still would watch the use of terms like that.
  • You should probably look for a couple more images, it may be difficult to find free use images for a song but if it's possible it would be good to add a couple more. Also be sure to add ALT text to the images that you have and that you add.
  • You have several short paragraphs. Consider combining or expanding these to make the reading easier.
  • You need consistency in your referencing format. See WP:CITE for various formats. All website refs should have title of the article, url, publisher and accessdate as a minimum. You can use the {{cite web}} template as a guide.
  • Make sure your references are credible and that you are ready to defend refs that the FAC reviewers question. Some of the refs I would question are: ChC media, Sound on Sound, Record Collector, expressandstar.com. These are sources I'm not familiar with (that's not to say they aren't credible I just don't recognize them).
  • You're going to need to get more references, especially book references (6 books in the "General" section) Are all those books actually referenced in the article with in-line cites? If not you should otherwise the books should go under a "Further Reading" section. A song of this magnitude with the level of exposure and impact it has had on the music industry should have been written about in several books. Check google books for a start. Book references are more credible and looked on more favorably at FAC than website refs. I see you have a section entitled "General" in the references section, I'm assuming that is for the books, and then "Specific is for websites and page numbers of the books used. I've never seen this format before. Be sure it follows one of the MOS-accepted referencing formats.

Other Notes:

  • When working on an article for FA I like to look at current FAs on the same subject to compare my article to. For this article I've chosen 4 Minutes (Madonna song) as an example for no particular reason other than that it is a popular song FA. Try to include all the subjects found in this article if possible. Note the Track listings and formats section as well as chart, sales and procession section. This would be good content to add to your article. The article also has 63 references, double what Bohemian Rhapsody has. Note there are no book references so you can have an FA with no book references but keep in mind that this article is about a fairly recent song (2 years old), with no where near the fame of Bohemian Rhapsody. Bohemian Rhapsody has been around for over 30 years. To see an FA for an older song look at Hey Jude. It's shorter than the Madonna song without some of the chart and track sections. It also has about 15 books referenced. I don't necessarily like the way the auther splits the Notes and References section like that but you'll find there are a plethora of ways to cite references in wikipedia. The important thing is to pick a format and be consistent.

TheStig 18:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but you'll never get it to FA with all that red at the bottom. I keep waiting for you to do something about that, but it's still there after four days. Don't forget about it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh don't worry, I know that's there. Somehow I managed to do that when I was changing some of the refs, so I've decided that I'll wait until I've finished re-doing all the citations until I scan through and weed that out. Nevertheless, you should be bold and try to contribute also. I've certainly done far more than my fair share of work on this article. Over the past few days I've begun to wonder where all the editors have gone! TheStigt·c 13:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
If they're like me, they're (a) trying to stay out of your way, (b) busy with RL, or (c) both of the above. But don't let us stop you. ;-) Cheers, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Any way vs. Anyway

The article states the grammatically correct "Any way the wind blows" however the sleeve of A Night at the Opera denotes it as "Anyway" instead. Which one should be used for the article and why? TheStigt·c 09:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Both versions of the song in my collection of sheet music (ISBN 0571527248 and ISBN 073999436365) use the "Any way the wind blows". (I have another three as PDFs, without ISBN, so can't be used for verifiability.) The subtitle to the Queen + Paul Rogers DVD Live in the Ukraine also uses this version. Perhaps a footnote could be used to indicate the discrepancy should anyone care? The JPStalk to me 10:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
First of all, we can probably all agree that this is a teeny, tiny topic to worry about. I feel a bit silly discussing it (or, Jimbo help me, arguing about it), and I won't revert it again no matter which way it gets changed (unless, of course, we get avid discussion here and we reach a strong consensus for one way, and some IP later changes it to the other).
Also, it's probably certain that Mercury meant "any way the wind blows", and only that sense; I don't seriously argue that he meant "anyway, the wind blows" (in the rough sense of "anyway, life sucks", or "so what, the world keeps turning"), although I do accept that as a possiblity.
Unless he was going for deliberate amiguity, I thing the line as printed in the original LP sleeve is just erroneous; it's missing either the space inside "anyway" or the comma which should follow it. If subsequent editions from the record label or music publishers have it as "any way", then I'd say we can proceed using that, without even requiring a footnote or mention. Does anyone (or any one of you) have a CD or newer release of A Night at the Opera where "any way" is used? The JPS, is that DVD you mentioned from Elektra/Warner?
I think my main point is only: just because some transcriber at a sheet music or karaoke or DVD company (or Peraino, apparently) made a change based on his/her educated knowledge of English, we shouldn't repeat the act here (WP:OR, WP:V, and all that, even on a teeny weeny scale).
Maybe instead of a footnote we could use sic, as in
The final line, "Anyway [sic!] the wind blows", is followed by the quiet sound of a large tam-tam that finally expels the tension built up throughout the song.
or maybe better, using the {{sic}} template,
The final line, "Anyway [sic] the wind blows", is followed by the quiet sound of a large tam-tam that finally expels the tension built up throughout the song.
I believe I'd most prefer that last option, because we'd use the (at least originally) correct (although gramatically incorrect) text from the Real Source, while noting the (universally?) recognized intention of the writer/singer. The {{sic}} template is supposed to discourage well-intentioned edits "correcting" what is obviously incorrect. We can then concentrate on more important areas.
I'm watching this discussion but I believe I'm done arguing. Carry on, carry on... — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, we're discussing, not arguing :) The DVD is Live in Ukraine. I'm unsure about the sic, as that might be considered OR by asserting what Mercury's intention may have been. Just because we agree on what is most likely, we're still breaching WP:NOR. I'll defend the We Will Rock You score because of May's intense involvement in the production and its score. I'm, reluctantly, happy with the one-word version because of its use on the original album sleeve, but perhaps with a footnote addressing why we are using this option, whilst highlighting various other reliable sources use "any way". This seems to be more objective? The JPStalk to me 12:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
A footnote should suffice, in my opinion. TheStigt·c 13:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Parodies!

There is no mention anywhere in the article of the [definitely numerous] parodies of the song, not even Weird Al's "Bohemian Polka"! Come on!75.99.170.138 (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Any third party reliable sources? Any such parody would needed to have been discussed independently, otherwise we're also going to get some bored school kid's YouTube attempt mashed up over a lunchtime. The JPStalk to me 20:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

merge

Please note : There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions with the purpose of trying to establish a standard rule for merge/separate different versions of the same song. Please make known your opinions on the matter. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the Muppets' covers are hilarious, but I would hate to see all the material from Bohemian Rhapsody (The Muppets) suddenly plunked down into this article. I believe both topics would suffer (this one more than the other).
I notice that the Muppets' version is currently mentioned here, very briefly, but without even a link to the other article. I don't think we need to cover (heh) all the details of the comic send-up here. It's a little too much of an in-joke (like going around saying "more cowbell" or "your mom") for those most likely to want to read this article. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Most of the Muppets article does not contain reliable sources. The short summary currently at the main article is sufficient, until more reliable sources can be found to fill out a separate article. The JPStalk to me 21:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Due to the modified lyrics and vastly modified tone of voice, as well as the exclusion of a large bulk of content in the song (most of the ballad section was cut out for the Muppets version), I regard it as more of a parody rather than an actual cover version. As such, I feel it doesn't really belong in this article. Not just that, but I would not support a merge of an article that is so poorly written and structured in to this Good Article, one that is quickly approaching FA status. TheStigt·c 15:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't have time right now, but clearly there's enough sources for the video ([1] is a google news list for "muppets bohemian rhapsody" for just Dec 2009, with at least 80 hits. I really GHITS and all that, but there's more than a handful of detailed sources in that.) Add in a Webby award, and it's notable as it's owner (parody or cover version). Mind you, there's a lot of trimming to do in that right now. --MASEM (t) 22:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Cover Versions

I know the muppets is mentioned, but Glee is covering this in the season 1 finale, which airs Tuesday, it's already been released for online listening, as well as on itunes. Should this be mentioned somewhere in the article? It's covered by Jonathon Groff (his character, obviously), and "Vocal Adrenaline" (a group in the show) 99.23.81.238 (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This sort of thing needs independent sources to assert notability. Otherwise we're going to get, "BR" was once mentioned in episode x of y. The JPStalk to me 18:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
'Mentioned' And 'Covered' are two entirely different things. They recorded a studio quality version of said song. You cannot really source a TV Show episode, however, gleethemusic has it on there, and it will also be released on Glee the Music: Journey to Regionals. If things are this strict with Bohemian Rhapsody, then there should be crackdown on every other song on Wikipedia. I understand Queen fans are 'protective' of this song, however, a very popular TV show is covering this song, releasing it as a single, airing it on TV, and releasing it in an album. That alone should be plenty mentionable. All can be sourced via the same sources on Glee: The Music, Journey to Regionals, and more sources can be found on the Journey (Glee) page. Everything else is like the entire muppets thing. It's something video, and cannot be sourced. 99.23.81.238 (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Re: "If things are this strict with Bohemian Rhapsody, then there should be crackdown on every other song on Wikipedia." ... WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS It's not just verifying that it was used: we need an independent source to say that its use was notable. For instance, academics and journalists have discussed BR's use in 'Wayne's World. The JPStalk to me 22:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why the only cover version mentioned in the article is the Muppets when there are many cover versions older than this, Including Rolf Harris's version which I came here look for info on and is writen about on his page.(94.8.164.59 (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC))

I've created List_of_Bohemian_Rhapsody_cover_versions, which solves this problem and the notability of The Muppets. The JPStalk to me 12:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with moving the Muppets articles as the starting point for this list; inclusion via seealso linkage, yes, but not complete inclusion. In part, I spent time yesterday establishing the notability of the song by itself, so the issues in the above section were addressed. Another part: the Muppets thing happened to become a single cover, but only started as the viral video, so it really doesn't fit there in its entirity. Secondly, which i hadn't gotten around to, I beilieve that it is likely better to expand the Muppets version to includion nearly all of the other Muppets online endevours instead of just the BR video, as each of them gain notability on their own. Because the section is about the video more than the actual single, that would be a better place for expansion. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to begin with an article about The Muppets' online endeavors, and then expand into daughter articles if need be. The JPStalk to me 09:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

At the begining, the version of the Muppets was not more then a cover. Later it was released as a (download) single of Queen + The Muppets (for example on amazon and itunes). This gave it later legally a sort of collaboration and not just a cover version. And this is now my own oppinion: if the by Queen fans less liked collaboration of Queen with Five is mentioned in the WWRY article, I think the collaboration of Queen with The Muppets can also be mentioned in the BR article. But I also think, that this article should be based on the original 1975 release and therefore further information about the collaboration should be posted on the cover topic. What do you think? Conclusion: mention muppet version as a collaboration, further information should be left in the topic about BR covers. mo merge of the articles!!! --Schmeed (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


Meaning of song's lyrics

I was curious about this explanation:

"It has been said in time that the song was Freddie's way of subliminally telling his fans about his AIDS. If you listen to the lyrics, it makes sense that it would be about his AIDS and how he's ruined his life and doesn't want to die..."

How could a song written in 1975 be about AIDS? This was well before HIV disease was clinically identified, and over a decade before Mercury was diagnosed as being HIV positive. Do you mean this was his was of telling fans he was *gay*? The two things are quite different.

Jay Seis (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Jay Seis 08/03/10Jay Seis (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That was added by an anonymous user at 1918, and I removed it at 2036. The JPStalk to me 20:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Genre

Can you really include EVERYTHING as simpley "rock"? I think you need to write every part's genre. Something like that: Ballad, Rock Opera, Hard Rock.
There's something a bit annoying, you tell us to dicuss first but none of the administraitors are responding here. >.> Pilmccartney (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither 'ballad" or 'rock opera' are genres? Why add them when they aren't even genres. Rock is a good description of all of Queen's music. 156.34.90.239 (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I propose simply having three genres on the thing (Rock, Opera, and Hard Rock). Toa Nidhiki05 21:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
What you should be doing is finding a source which states what the genre is, and quote that with references. Discussing what you want to call it fails WP:OPINION. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that this song has definately got some Rock style in it but I also think Pop is also in this song as well.

Intro quote--musically incorrect

I apologize for the length of this post, but I had trouble making it much more concise than my original 4000+ character draft.

Please don't ignore this post! D=

I just noticed the 'no original research' page, i.e. users should normally only post information taken from reliable,

published sources. But I'm afraid to have to say, although I've never published anything, this author's quote, presuming it

was not transcribed incorrectly, is incorrect, despite having been published -- Books in general do have editors, but I doubt

many books about music have properly trained musical editors.

If someone has access to the book "Queering the Popular Pitch" and can flip to page 252 to verify if the quote is

mistranscribed, that would be great.

For reference, the citation for the quote specifies page 252 of Whiteley, Sheila (2006). Queering the Popular Pitch.

Routledge. ISBN 0-415-97805-X.


---THE PART OF THIS POST THAT ADDRESSES THE POINT---

Below is the original segment from the quote that I (as a learned musician) disagree with.:

heightened by the harmonic change from B♭ (6) to C7 in bars 1 and 2;

This makes little musical sense as I can see (save for 'C7' if she's referring to the chord and not the (unsung) note C7

(3 octaves above middle C, yikes).

Although the first (topmost) sung note IS a B♭, the actual first chord is 4-note (D4 F4 G4 B♭4) Gm7 2nd inversion, followed by a correctly quoted C7. (Not to mention, if she was referring to B♭ as the first note OR chord, either way, the 6 makes no sense, as the note is in the 4th octave, and is not a B♭6(3) (1st inversion) nor a B♭6(4) (2nd inv.) chord, but rather in actuality is that latter (2nd) inversion of Gm7. This is also not to mention that switching from referring initially to a note sung in the 'harmony' to a chord without any notice is vague and potentially misleading.)

So as you can see, this makes very little to no sense. I had been carefully studying the song during the half-hour or so before I brought up the Wikipedia page and noticed the error.

Since it's a quote from a book (that is if it's not a transcription typo), I don't at all imagine we can nor should change her words,

I don't know what Wikipedia generally does in a situation like this, but I thought I'd let you guys know.

Perhaps the quote could be truncated of that specific part, or the quote replaced with a better one, or taken out altogether.

I'll leave that decision up to the Wikipedia community.

HERE DOWN = SKIPPABLE / EXTRANEOUS

(unless you feel kind enough to skip to the P.S. in the name of helping out a Wikipedia newb with a signature leaving problem...)


The only way I can imagine this quote making any semblance of sense, out of context, if in the context it was understood that the "(6)" referred to the amount of notes sung, and 'harmonic' was somehow established to refer initially to a note, and then a chord without any specific mention. This concept is hard to swallow, and is regardless misleading at the very least, and I don't necessarily imagine it is the sense in which the author meant it; I think either she was just wrong, mistyped, or the quote was mistranscribed.

I.E. "heightened by the [topmost vocal] harmonic change from B♭ [with] (6) [of them sung] to [the chord] C7 in bars 1 and 2;"

Unrelated: Help with signature

P.S. - Can someone tell me why it's kind of signing my post when I use the four tildes, but not as a link, and then minutes later adds "previously unsigned comment added by" my nickname and talk links in the proper linked format? It's confusing the heck out of me; Sorry, I'm a bit of a newb. I did read through the help though. And here I go, signing with four tilde's below:

Tehmikuji (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Well, it's still adding the preceding comment thing (after a while) it seems. At the time I'm typing this, 'Tehmikuji' and 'talk' do not appear as links (not the initial ones before the "Preceding unsigned comment added by" thing. The help page Wikipedia:How_to_fix_your_signature did not help me.

In my preferences, I currently have (without the quotation marks) "Tehmikuji (talk)" typed into the field, and the "Treat the above as Wiki Markup" box checked. I realize this isn't the place to ask about this, but.. I hope you'll have a little patience with a newbie, and at the very least simply ignore this without letting the FAIL of it get to you.

Attempting to sign via 4 tildes again, Tehmikuji (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehmikuji (talk • contribs)

Hi, Tehmikuji. I believe that SineBot expects links in your signature and, as you've noticed, yours doesn't have any links. SineBot can't know that you've signed, then, so it does it for you. The reason you've got no links is that you've (1) overridden the default signature in your Preferences and (2) specified that no link should appear (just your name and the word (talk)).
The easiest thing to do, considering the form of signature you want, is to clear the Signature field and clear the checkbox, "Treat the above as wiki markup." Click Save, and you should have the same sig you showed above. If you want anything fancier, you can read on...
If you look at what SineBot creates (use the edit window), you might see the (heh) missing link. It's in the square brackets. The link target is what comes before the "pipe" symbol inside the brackets.
Try this: In your Preferences, set the sig to be: [[User:Tehmikuji|Tehmikuji]] ([[User talk:Tehmikuji|talk]])
That should give you a link to your User page first, followed, in parentheses, by a link to your Talk page. (This is actually the default form, so the simpler way I mentioned earlier is...simpler.) When you use ~~~~ this bit will be inserted followed by the date and time. Good luck. For more help, use your Talk page (or mine).
I can't help with the musical bit above, as I (1) have no idea about, you know, notes and stuff; and (2) can't make out what your words have to do with the article. It's not at all clear (to me) what you want changed or what you want it changed to. Maybe somebody less musically ignorant will get it and respond. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I added that material, and I accessed the book using Google Books, which you can use to verify it yourself. However, a) the book could be inaccurate (although your own musical knowledge can't be used to correct that - you'd need another WP:RS), or, b), someone could have changed it. The JPStalk to me 12:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Genre

This needs to be listed as Progressive Rock, perfect genre for this song and to not call it this is really ludacris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by World wrestling federation ztj (talk • contribs) 04:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read the above discussions. The JPStalk to me 12:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Typo in Opera section: source check needed please.

The Peraino quote given has: "[...]while the hero presents himself as meek through mily."

Mily seems to be an obvious typo: but for what? "wily"? Can someone with access to the source please check and correct? --Kay Dekker (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Any mention of the new 2009 mix

from Queen + The Muppets? MaJic (comments go here) 06:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Bohemian Rhapsody cover versions The JPStalk to me 15:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


Please insert this fact somewhere

Ironically, the song that knocked this off the #1 chart position in the UK was "Mama Mia" by ABBA. The words "Mama Mia" are repeated in this in the line "Oh mama Mia, mama Mia, mama Mia let me go." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.190.16 (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. That's just trivia. Friginator (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

About the SOS '95 Article

I read last year's discussion comparing the SOS article and QueenConcerts in terms of authenticity. Now, I won't talk about QueenConcerts at the moment, just focus on SOS. I'm not denying that:

  • It's a respectable publication.
  • Roy Baker, unlike most (or all) of us, was there.
  • The article is serious, detailed and mostly accurate.

However, keep in mind that:

  • Even the best publications can make mistakes.
  • A person's memory is not perfect. Roy Baker may have easily misremembered after two decades.
  • There are other sources, which contradict some of the info.

Wessex Studios were, indeed, NOT used for this album. They were used for 'Sheer Heart Attack' (1974), also co-produced by Roy Baker, which is probably why he may have misremembered; another bit of trivia: both Wessex (up until summer '74, that is) and Lansdowne (which were used for 'A Night at the Opera' and, according to the current owner of the flat where they were located, used for parts of 'Bohemian Rhapsody') were both owned by George Martin, adding to the possibility that memory can easily mix-up the two of them (you can read the Wikipedia article on memory).

This is NOT having SOS vs Queen Concerts, but having a 20-year old recollection against:

  • The album's liner notes (which were written mere days, not decades, after the recording sessions), which list the studios used for the album (i.e. Roundhouse, Scorpio, Lansdowne, Olympic, Rockfield and Sarm, not Wessex).
  • The album's corrected liner notes on the 30th anniversary edition (which add Trident because of the National Anthem being recorded there on 27th October 1974, but again does not include Wessex).
  • The fact Wessex Studios were, at that time, undergoing refurbishing, as they'd changed ownership and management. New recording rooms were built, a new piano was bought, maintenance engineers were hired (source: an interview with Timothy Freese-Greene on his website)... so, at the time, even if they'd wanted to record at Wessex, they wouldn't have been able to.

Being sensible, what's more likely? That album liner notes and even the history of the studios were wrong, or that a 20-year old recollection from a producer was wrong?

Same for the typo (which could've been the magazine's editor's mistake, rather than Baker's) on Scorpio Studio. They were indeed Scorpio, not Scorpion. Sources? Album liner notes, Marc Bolan's biography (T-Rex also recorded there), Supertramp's liner notes (they also recorded there), Ken Scott's recollection (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/q-producer-engineer-ken-scott/562010-scorpio-sound-studios.html), a Billboard ad celebrating their sixth year (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8yMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT48&dq=%22scorpio+sound%22&hl=en&ei=38qGTeztGOeT0QH0grnDCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22scorpio%20sound%22&f=false). All of that vs. a single publication based on an interview made two decades after the fact and already including another typo (the band rehearsed in Hertfordshire, not Herefordshire).

Due to the aforementioned reasons, if it's OK with the Wikipedia community, I'll take the liberty of removing Wessex from the list of studios used and correct the spelling on Scorpio. There are things we will probably never know for sure, but whether Wessex were used for this is not one of them; same for the name of Scorpio Sound Studio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb1925 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

History and Recording - Drum Click

According to several official sources, there was no drum click or metronome of any sort. Freddie Mercury conducted them and instructed them on the pauses (sources: John Deacon on the Magic Years documentary, Freddie Mercury on one of his filmed Munich interviews, Roger Taylor on Rhythm Magazine 2002, Brian May on the Inside the Rhapsody documentary). The multi-track also lacks said click track, both on its contents (available via the mentioned documentary, also played with on the 2004 BBC special programme about the song) and its tracksheet (visible on the aforementioned BBC documentary).

In fact, the piano tracks, if volume's turned considerably up during the silences, you can hear Mercury counting before the 'no no no no no no no' bit, while he's playing with Deacon and Taylor on the backing track. Again, it proves there was no drum click. This is not original research, but having several sources pointing at having no click track at all for this song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb1925 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Cover Versions

link to cover versions page please List_of_Bohemian_Rhapsody_cover_versions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.43.43 (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's already included. Friginator (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my recent change (removed Sheilah Whiteley quote from Intro section)

This is why I am against the "no original research" rule as being an absolute rule regarding all things.

The truth of the matter is that someone with a good enough ear can hear exactly what's going on in a piece of music. To someone without a musical ear, it might seem that multiple notes at the same time "cover each other up," much in the same way putting a wall between someone and a TV screen would prevent them from seeing the TV, but this is simply not true. They layer, and there are no secrets, nothing is hidden. Everything is self-evident fact to a good enough musician (with regard to harmony and such).

"Scholar" Sheilah Whitely was quoted as saying something like "... harmonic change from B-flat (6) to C7 in bars 1 and 2," and this makes no musical sense, no matter what way you look at it.

If we are talking about harmony, the harmony/chords change from [the 2nd inversion of] a G minor 7 chord to C [dominant] 7, in bars 1 and 2. Is it printed in a book or article somewhere? Not that I specifically know of, but it is, I assure you with 100% confidence, a fact.

If you guys wanna add the Sheilah Whitely quote back, I would be happy if someone else has the time to check out the book and compare it with any number of previous versions of the article (before ~5:20pm PDT (GMT -7), April 26, 2011), and, if it was misquoted, then perhaps we can add it back, that is if the real text is correct of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehmikuji (talk • contribs) 00:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed

"The 2005 edition of the top 2000 was listened to by more than 60% of the total Dutch populace" – This sentence needs citation, please indicate the source. Otherwise, it will become the Former Good Article. TGilmour (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of the Song

Who agrees with me that this sentence might make it seem as if there is more speculation about this song's meaning than there actually is: "Despite this, critics, both journalistic and academic, have speculated over the meaning behind the song's lyrics." I think that pretty much everybody agrees it's about a young man who confesses to an impulsive murder and has an epiphany before he is being executed. There are 7 billion people in the world and this song is extremely well-known, so it's no surprise that there's one music scholar, Sheila Whiteley, who has her own theory. But these are exceptions. Maybe we can add the word "some"? "Despite this, some critics, both journalistic and academic, have speculated over the meaning behind the song's lyrics." --82.171.13.139 (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

from 7 minutes to 5:55 ?

Book source : John Tobler and Stuart Grundy, The Record Producers, BBC, 1982, ISBN 0 563 17958 9.

In the chapter regarding Roy Thomas Baker, the producer himself says, by three times on page 216, that the original recorded version lasted 7 minutes, also stating (back in 1981-82) that this long version got unexpected airplay by Kenny Everett on his Capitol Radio Saturday and Sunday programme, being entirely played fourteen times over the weekend. This second point is confirmed in the Release section of the feature (sourced by a subsequent book), but the 7 minute duration is never quoted.

Provided that we grant those 1981-82 RTB's sayings with some credibility, would s’dy know :

1. If this long version has surfaced somewhere on a record ?

2. How the final single version was shortened by at least one minute ?

Thanks in advance

--Bibliorock (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's always been 5:55 to my knowledge, and I've never seen any reason to think that it was longer at some point. It's listed as that length on a large number of the original vinyl pressings, and the music video clocks in at approximately that length too, having just checked. I have no idea why people (including Roy Thomas Baker, of all people) think it's so long. Maybe there was a demo that was longer, (I wouldn't be able to say), but even if that were the case, it wouldn't count as the official song anyway. Cheers. Friginator (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but, regarding a so famous song, I just feel there's s'thing missing ! Sure s'dy will clear this up... before Xmas ;-) --Bibliorock (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Videos for Seven Seas and Killer?

Though some artists had made video clips to accompany songs (including Queen themselves; for example, "Keep Yourself Alive", "Seven Seas Of Rhye", "Killer Queen" and "Liar" already had "pop promos", as they were known at the time),

Queen made promos for "Seven Seas of Rhye" and "Killer Queen" (before "Bohemian Rhapsody")? That's total rubbish, AFAIK. Source? 188.222.184.114 (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Movie use BEFORE Wayne's World

As mentioned in the article, Bohemian Rhapsody got a lot of attention from its inclusion in the 1992 movie "Wayne's World." Yet, in this article, and in a Wikipedia article on Vic Tayback, there is NO mention of the use of this song in the 1989 movie "Loverboy." The "Wayne's World" scene with Bohemian Rhapsody WAS ALMOST AN EXACT COPY of the SAME SCENE from "Loverboy." In both scenes, a group of men were in a car when the song came on the radio and the men started bopping their heads during the guitar solo in the song. In "Loverboy," the Queen song was playing as the men were on their way to confront the pizza delivery boy (Patrick Demsey) (whose mother was played by Kate Jackson) who had become the town's male prostitute and had been with the wives of those men (one of whom was played by Vic Tayback). When I first saw "Wayne's World," I considered that the scene was an homage to the "Loverboy" scene. But since I've never seen an acknowledgement of this, it appears to be a rip off.

Loverboy cast site: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097790/fullcredits#cast — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swrathell (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Bohemian Rhapsody: Progressive rock

Why do you keep the genre of "Bohemian Rhapsody"as "Rock", as Rock is a very diverse genre of music, that is used to describe music by 1950's artists like Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly, to Cliff Richard, to the Beach Boys, to The Beatles, Rolling Stones and The Who, to The Doors, Jefferson Airplane, Velvet Underground, to David Bowie, T. Rex, Sweet, Gary Glitter, Electric Light Orchestra, Pink Floyd, Roxy Music, to Queen, to Emerson, Lake & Palmer, to Jethro Tull, Yes and Genesis, to Styx and Kansas, to the Ramones, The Sex Pistols and the Clash. To Blondie, The Talking Heads, Joy Division, Gary Numan, Duran Duran, Spandau Ballet, to Journey, Def Leppard, Iron Maiden, Poison, Motley Crue, to Nirvana, Jane's Addiction and The Red Hot Chili Peppers. All of the artists listed, play in the rock music genre, however, their style of music is not at all the same (e.g. The Beatles do not at all sound like The Talking Heads, or Chuck Berry does not sound like Electric Light Orchestra) because the genre of rock music is so diverse; which is why sub genres are used to describe music that sounds similar to one another or from the same time period (e.g. Beat music is used to describe rhythm and blues artists and groups from the UK in the 1960's, groups that belonged to this include the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Animals etc.) another example is Progressive rock, which was a sub genre of rock music that emerged in the late 1960s, it featured characteristics that were different for its time period, including, abrupt tempo, key and time signature changes, asymetric time signatures such as 5/8 and 7/8, very complicated rhythms, lyrical themes drawing inspiration from fantasy and science fiction, song organization that eschews the typical verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus format,melodies inspired by the complexities of classical music and jazz, and sometimes featured odd synthesizer programming, and sound effects. Groups that belonged to this sub genre of rock included, Pink Floyd, Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Electric Light Orchestra, Yes, Jethro Tull, Genesis and Queen's earlier works. Giving a song a genre like "Rock" is not very descriptive, as rock music is a very diverse genre, and does not do it any justice. It would be like grouping the sky, a bucket of blue paint and a smurf (even though smurfs don't actually exist) based on the only similarity being that they are the colour blue, rather than looking for other similarities and grouping them more specifically rather than using something very general (like the colour blue). Queen's early work (Queen, Queen II, Sheer Heart Attack, A Night At The Opera) very much differ from what they did later on. Grouping it all under the Genre is non-descriptive and extremely general, The song "Seven Seas of Rhye" is very much different from "Crazy Little Thing Called Love", "Seven Seas of Rhye" would be grouped under progressive rock, because it features a classically inspired melody and deals with the subject of mythology, rather "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" deals with the typical subject matter of love and is played in a 1950's inspired Rockabilly style (a stark contrast to the progressive rock style of "Seven Seas of Rhye"). The same goes for "Bohemian Rhapsody" in comparison to lets say "Body Language", "Bohemian Rhapsody" is a very good example of progressive rock because it does not at all feature the typical verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus format, abrupt tempo, key and time signature changes, features a classically inspired melody and features some elements of opera (e.g. "Mamma mia let me go"), and deals with the subject of death and mythology (e.g. "Just killed a man" and "Beelzebub"), which is a stark contrast to "Body Language" done in a dance-funk style and deals with the obvious and typical subject matter of sex (e.g. "Sexy body sexy sexy, body I want your body, baby you're hot"). Therefore, consider why you think this mediocre description of "Rock" does any justice to describe the genre of different songs and why you so desperately wish to revert any slight genre change, that does happen to make sense like "Progressive rock" or "Rock Opera". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.133.175 (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved here from my talk. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Genre's on any well known musical article are formed & maintained by WP:RELIABLESOURCES and WP:CONSENSUS. You have made your case now see what discussion arises. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
If you can find a reliable source that explicitly lists "Progressive rock" as the genre, we can add it. Otherwise, we should continue to keep all Queen articles under the same non-controversial umbrella. It's not our job as encyclopedia editors to add our own personal interpretations. I've heard the "Rock is too general" argument a million times, and it still doesn't make any sense. You're not the first one to beat that dead horse. I can't believe I have to explain this, but different songs sound different, and we can't put a different genre for each different sound we hear. Genres are meant to group different subjects, not describe them specifically. If you want to mention progressive rock, add it to the article body. And as for your oh-so-iron-clad argument pertaining to imaginary Belgian imps that live in mushrooms: if the articles sky and smurf had to be linked together in the infobox by color, yes, the answer would be blue. I don't see what's hard to understand about that, and quite frankly, I think I lost a few brain cells reading the argument in the first place. And people wonder why I'm against the "genre" parameter. Mother of God. Friginator (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The Genre parameter is an endless battle. Mlpearc (powwow) 21:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Bismillah or Brit milah ?

brit milah is the circumcision. Re-read the text now:

I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me

He's just a poor boy from a poor family

Spare him his life from this monstrosity

Easy come easy go -- will you let me go?

Brit milah! No! We will not let you go! -- Let him go!

Never let you go! -- Let me go!

Never let me go! -- ooo

No, no, no!

Oh Mama mia, Mama mia! Let me go!

Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me!

"

That devils is of course the man/father cutting his son.

Makes more sense? --SvenAERTS (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Suicide?

When it comes to interpreting the meaning behind Bohemian Rhapsody's lyrics, I was surprised not to see it mentioned that the song could be about a man contemplating suicide. When hearing "Mama, just killed a man," I always assumed that the "man" he was referring to was himself. It doesn't necessarily mean that he has gone through with it, but it could be that he's running through the scenario in his mind and imagining what he would say and how he would justify it if he did. In this context, "I don't want to die," makes a lot of sense. It illustrates the cognitive dissonance a person experiences when contemplating suicide. It's quite possible that the song is about a man's internal struggle about whether he should end his own life. In a vulnerable moment of crisis like this, it's also natural that the character might, in his own mind, direct his internal dialogue toward his mother. I am not a Wikipedia expert; could someone advise on whether or not this would be an appropriate inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.71.100 (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguity resolved

With regard to the phrase "accusing him/her of betrayal and abuse", if the singer is a man, which Freddie Mercury is, don't you think it would be better to say "accusing her"? Because a man is speaking to a woman, not to another man, when he sings the word "baby". At least that's my viewpoint and I'm going to edit that part.--Fandelasketchup (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I reverted it since, as you said, "that's my viewpoint and I'm going to edit that part" and viewpoint doesn't have anything to do with it. Since the person is simply a "you" and doesn't have a specified gender it could be either. Plus there's the fact that Queen has used ambiguity regarding the gender of addressed persons in other songs intentionally. 108.77.147.9 (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The article states that Bb Mixolydian is based on the notes of the Eb scale. That would be Bb Lydian. Bb Mixolydian is based on the notes of the F 24.148.29.92 (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Major scale.

Other Versions

A fair amount of space is given to "Wayne's World", but none to the Muppets + Queen version?

http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Bohemian_Rhapsody

It seems to be that this version (which includes lyric changes and some editing) also deserves attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.215.154 (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Time?

This is a long article, so maybe I missed something, but other than a mention of 1-1-2 in one part of the song, there seems to be no mention of what time the song is. since it is rock (sort of) and since 1-1-2 seems to be a kind of 4/4 (I'm not a musician, so I don't know, but there's no link to what 1-1-2 is), maybe the song is in 4/4. Can someone in the know include this information in the article -- or disabuse me of it if this is wrong.211.225.33.104 (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Influences from Commedia dell'arte

Commedia dell'Arte was a style of street performance that became popular in Italy roughly during the same time that William Shakespeare was writing plays in England. There were many common themes and characters that were portrayed by the itinerant thespians, and the style went on to have enormous influences on performing art throughout Europe.

There are many elements in "Bohemian Rhapsody" that are taken from standard Commedia dell'Arte motifs and characters.

First off, the line from "Bohemian Rhapsody": 

"I see a little silhouetto of a man, 
Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango?"

The "silhouetto of a man" is a reference to Commedia dell'Arte shadow puppets that were common on the streets of Naples and other parts of southern Italy.

"Scaramouche" is one of the most common characters that appear in the Punch and Judy puppet shows. He is also imported from Italy, and is dressed to represent an effete Spanish dandy. He often comes out on stage to dance the Fandango, an 18th century Spanish dance.

Next, from the song: 

"(Galileo) Galileo. 
(Galileo) Galileo, 
Galileo Figaro 
Magnifico."

This is a reference to the Italian Commedia dell'Arte again. Galileo sometimes appeared in the street performers' skits as someone of ridicule - portrayed as a foolish wise man, whom the Catholic Church had to censor for spreading crazy ideas.

Figaro, of course, is a reference to late 18th century opera "The Barber of Seville", by Pierre Beaumarchais. Beaumarchais based his play directly on Commedia dell'Arte characters and style, including using the name Figaro, which had been a standard character portrayed by street performers in Naples for over 100 years.

Finally: 

"Oh, mama mia, mama mia (Mama mia, let me go.) 
Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me, for me, for me."

There is a theme throughout this part of "Bohemian Rhapsody" that uses Italian phrases, again probably a reference to Commedia dell'Arte.

The reference to Beelzebub is also from Commedia dell'Arte, who was a stock character used by the Italian street performers.

Taken as a whole, the plot of the song could be almost precisely a stylized version of a Commedia dell'Arte performance, brought up to date. The song talks about a young man who has killed someone, and now must face the consequences of his actions, and is calling for his sweet mother, and bidding farewell to his friends. This moral play was very typical of many of the Commedia dell'Arte performances from the 17th century on.

The painting below is of a Commedia dell'Arte performance. The main character on the left (the "Harlequin") is preparing to fight and kill his protagonist on the right (both holding knives). The main character's mother hovers behind him, and the constable is coming from stage left to arrest him for murder. This is almost a complete depiction of the events described in "Bohemian Rhapsody".

http://www.wikigallery.org/wiki/painting_314383/(after)-Louis-De-Caullery/A-scene-from-a-Commedia-dell'arte

Perhaps some mention of this could be made in the article. --Saukkomies talk 18:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bohemian Rhapsody. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done All sources updated or modified where necessary. Richard3120 (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Rock opera

Rock opera has been removed as "not a genre" seems it is per Rock opera. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it say rock opera is a music "genre", it says it is a collection of songs (plural). A rock opera is very much akin to a concept album and the two are often used to mean the same thing, as this article states http://uk.ign.com/articles/top-14-greatest-rock-operasconcept-albums-of-all-time?page=1. Bohemian Rhapsody, by contrast, is a song with operatic influences, very different from Tommy by The Who or Jesus Christ Superstar by Andrew Lloyd Webber, which are more accurately defined as rock operas. Rodericksilly (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Interestingly, neither Jesus Chris Superstar or Tommy are on Wikipedia in their genre box as rock operas, even though they do fit the criteria for rock operas more so than a song such as Bohemian Rhapsody. We have sources for progressive rock, progressive pop, symphonic rock, hard rock and heavy metal in the article, so why are we adding rock opera too (and removing progressive pop)? Rodericksilly (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The sources for Tommy suggest that "Rock opera" was something Kit Lambert played up to help sell the album; it's more of a song cycle. While the liner notes for A Night At The Opera credit "operatic vocals", and the song has multiple sections, it's always thought of as a standalone piece. "Rock" would be the simplest and consistent category; let's face it, Freddie had a multi-cultural background and it comes through in his music. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

This should get back to Good Article

The reason for delisting was kind of cruel - some citation neededs, should have been easily fixed, and complaint that the time of the song isn't listed. I mean, this isn't your usual bang on the drums and sing the chorus kind of song, it's a bit mysterious to say what time it is! I found a dubious source for 9/8 and 4/4, see fairly serious forum posts about a bar of 2/4 and some 6/8 at the end. It's interesting, and if people can I wish they'd address it.

Still... this ought to go back. I didn't realize an article about a song could get this detailed and interesting; I'm surprised it's not a feature. Wnt (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly... I'm not a particular fan of the song(!), but its contribution to musical history can't be understated, and I've come across plenty of GAs for songs that are not only less detailed, but had some serious factual errors in them. I really only contributed the references for the charts section, but there are a handful of dedicated editors who really deserve recognition for the work they put into this article. Richard3120 (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bohemian Rhapsody. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Checked and working. Richard3120 (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bohemian Rhapsody. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Richard3120 (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Another parody

An interesting 2012 (American ?) parody, titled Bethlehemian Rhapsody, in a funny puppet video, pretty well sung and played.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxvMkSKRWOA

The only available info is new lyrics are written by Mark Bradford and the performance directed by Darla Robinson (dunno who they are and where from). The tune in the video is slightly shortened to 4 mn 48 sec, but the music is really close to the original.

Is it worth including this short info w/ the link in the feature ? --Bibliorock (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bibliorock: sorry, just seen this comment... no, unless that parody has been discussed in other reliable independent sources, it fails WP:SONGCOVER. Richard3120 (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bohemian Rhapsody. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Richard3120 (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Symphonic rock

symphonic rock goes straight to the prog page, no distinction is made between them on the prog page

it doesn't say that symphonic rock is a genre, though, does it, it says it was a strain, and if it's so significant, why isn't there more on it in the prog article, let alone a separate article establishing its significance?

  • "Bohemian Rhapsody could easily have been dismissed as a fitting farewell to the dying genre of symphonic rock"[2]
  • It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page.[3]

I don't need to look at the Paul Fowles source, I know it well because I originally added it to this page, but that was when symphonic rock had its own article, which is precisely my point, it no longer does

Nothing else to say except: wtf? Just because Wikipedia does not currently have a dedicated article for symphonic rock (as opposed to a dedicated section, which it does) doesn't mean the genre has vanished from the earth. It has only been made part of a broader topic (progressive rock)... It would be like writing "krautrock/kosmische musik"—it suggests they're the same thing when they're absolutely not, they're just sometimes thrown around interchangeably similar to "art rock" and "progressive rock".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

As you well know, Wikipedia "did" have a dedicated article for symphonic rock, which was deleted due to questions over its importance and almost complete lack of sources. Art rock, by contrast, has a very detailed article with plenty of sources. So there is no comparison I'm afraid. Unless you care to find a load of good sources and build up a good article on symphonic rock again. Rodericksilly (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Again. WP:NOPIPEDLINK advises against this. It makes no difference whether symphonic rock has an article. It is a distinct topic covered in sources, most of which distinguish it from prog-rock. Therefore, Wikipedia must also distinguish it from prog-rock, and be careful not to mislead readers into thinking that people generally consider it the same thing. They don't.
  • It is important not to oversimplify material in the effort to make it more understandable. Encyclopedia articles should not "tell lies to children" in the sense of giving readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when they don't.[4]
What policies or guidelines support your preference? Do any exist? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it makes it very clear in the opening line of the progressive rock article that "symphonic rock" is often used as just an alternate name for progressive rock. It does not establish anywhere that it is a distinct genre from "progressive rock". I have even seen people attempt to classify "Who Wants to Live Forever" as "symphonic rock"... Why? Guess what, because it's got an orchestra on it! So some people think symphonic rock is any song with an orchestra on it. But of course, the constant with all this is that sources are never used to define exactly what symphonic rock is and how it is different from progressive rock. Rodericksilly (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Progressive rock Seems to be the logical choice, I agree with Rodericksilly. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
No, it doesn't say "often used as just an alternate name". It says it's "sometimes called art rock, classical rock, or symphonic rock", while sources contradict each other on whether there are differences between the terms. "Progressive rock" has also been mixed up with "electronic rock". You're acting as though your opinion is the widespread consensus. It's not. (WP:ADVOCACY) --Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't directly quoting the opening line of the prog article and you know that, so don't make out that I was. Whether it says "alternate name" or "sometimes called", now you're just arguing for the sake of it. As for your comment on "sources contradict each other on whether there are differences between the terms", that sounds like a very good reason for doubting the reliability of anything to do with symphonic rock. There are hardly any mentions of symphonic rock in the prog article, nothing about how it is distinct from the general term of progressive rock, nothing to say it is a separate genre, or even a subgenre like neo-prog. Rodericksilly (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
You've been backpedaling this entire time. "Sometimes called ..." is completely different from saying "is also known as ..." If there is no consistency to the use of "symphonic rock", then we should be going by what the individual sources state in their given context. In the "Bohemian Rhapsody" sources, nobody suggests that "symphonic rock" is the same thing as "progressive rock". That is OR on your part. Besides that, more sources regard "symphonic rock" and "progressive rock" as distinguished terms than they do synonyms. So why are we defaulting to "they're the same thing"? Because they share the same article space? Does that means Synth-punk should always be piped to Punk rock, or Psybient to Psychedelic trance? Nonsense. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I've not "backpedaled" on anything. Oh, and "Sometimes called ..." and "is also known as ..." don't sound "completely different" to me, they sound extremely similar. We obviously don't speak the same version of English. And "more sources regard 'symphonic rock' and 'progressive rock' as distinguished terms than they do synonyms"? Where are all these sources to which you refer and why aren't there enough of them to build an article which explains how symphonic rock is a distinct genre from progressive rock when there's even one on neo-prog, which was a widely derided derivative version of progressive rock? Rodericksilly (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Anon (n.d.). "Prog-Rock". AllMusic.
  2. ^ Fowles, Paul (2009). A Concise History of Rock Music. Mel Bay Publications, Inc. p. 243. ISBN 978-0786666430.
  3. ^ WP:NOPIPEDLINK
  4. ^ WP:OVERSIMPLIFY

Beach Boys

The article stated: The Beach Boys' 1966 single "Good Vibrations", which also consisted of disparate music sections recorded separately, was a precursor to "Bohemian Rhapsody".[1]. That is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. -- Zz (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"That is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards." Why? Rodericksilly (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Fraser McAlpine is contributor to The Guardian, BBC America, and The Independent. He's not exactly a high-quality source, but still acceptable by Wikipedia standards. Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ McAlpine, Fraser (10 October 2015). "10 Things You May Not Know About Queen's 'Bohemian Rhapsody'". BBC America.
Articles like these are clickbait. He needs ten facts, and he gives an opinion. Yes, that is his right and his livelihood, but it is neither reliable nor reputable. -- Zz (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Intro Missing Any Explanation of Song

I read thru the entire Intro twice, and was astounded that there was no explanation whatsoever of what the song is about. Not a single word. Very disappointing. Then I skimmed down thru section after section before finally reaching the very lengthy discussion on that question. (Whew...) There really needs to be some indication of what it's about right there in the Intro. Not easy to summmarize, to be sure, but surely somebody is up to the task? Regards, Anomalous+0 (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

But if nobody knows for certain what the song is about, how would we summarise that? "The meaning behind the lyrics has been speculated over by many critics, with theories ranging from Mercury's attempts to deal with issues from his childhood or his homosexuality, to a story of a man making a Faustian pact with the devil, while others believe the lyrics have no meaning at all; Mercury would only say that the song is about relationships". Richard3120 (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

One Billion Views on YouTube

This song has reached 1 billion views on YouTube but I am unsure where this would go in the article. Source: https://www.udiscovermusic.com/news/queen-bohemian-rhapsody-billion-youtube/. It's also on the band's Facebook and on the video itself on YouTube. Since this happened very recently, Billboard and other more reliable sources should probably pick up on it in a few hours or a day. Not sure if y'all want to wait for them to pick it up or if the sources available now are enough.

CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done [2] - FlightTime (open channel) 16:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

"Is this the real life" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Is this the real life. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 4#Is this the real life until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Trident piano

Not a Queen expert, but the claim that the piano used was the same as that used on "Hey Jude" and "Life on Mars?" – the so-called Trident Piano – although widely believed, seems to be a myth. I've added a dubious tag. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dave.Dunford: But you will need to provide evidence that it may be a myth, because at the moment it's just your word against several reliable sources. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you need to provide that evidence. Richard3120 (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Richard3120: I'll try, though it's difficult to prove a negative. This forum thread is fairly convincing (though not a reliable source by Wikipedia norms) – see posts by "RussTee61" dated 3 August 2009 and "sebsebseb" dated 30 June 2010. I do have a friend who (literally) wrote the book about Queen so I'll consult him. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dave.Dunford: that's a very good point actually made by that thread, and one that hadn't occurred to me before... A Night at the Opera wasn't recorded (for the most part) at Trident Studios, where the famous piano was housed, and there is no way they would have moved the piano to another studio for recording... quite apart from the logistics, Trident certainly wouldn't have let Queen have it, bearing in mind they'd just terminated their contract with them. It might be another of the myths around the album, like it being the most expensive ever recorded at the time – I've seen articles from the music press at the time where Queen's management vehemently deny this assertion, but the myth seems to have persisted. Richard3120 (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Belated response: courtesy of my Queen-expert friend, I have an electronic copy of his personal research photograph of a hand-written and -dated tape box with a label for Rockfield Studios in Monmouth showing that "Freddie's Piano Bits" (sic) for Bohemian Rhapsody were recorded there on 18 August 1975, and – as you say – Queen's hostile departure from Trident means it's vanishingly unlikely that the studio would have let them borrow their piano. Unfortunately, the photograph is not available for upload to Wikipedia. Where next? Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Dave.Dunford: tricky, I must admit. I've been looking for sources to conclusively disprove that it's the same piano, but nothing yet... there's lots of evidence, such as the fact the backing tracks were all recorded at Rockfield, and Queen had no contact with Trident at this point in time, including not using the studio where the "Hey Jude" piano was housed. But any attempt to join the dots will require some original research, and I'm not sure how to avoid that for the time being. My best effort so far is something like "It has been stated that the piano was the same as the one used for "Hey Jude". However, that piano was the studio piano at Trident Studios, and Queen had cut all contact with Trident by the time of the song's recording, and although four studios were used to record the song, Trident was not among them." Richard3120 (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bohemian_Rhapsody/Archive_3&oldid=1215162295"