Talk:Bohemian Rhapsody/Archive 2

Scaramouche
Tiberio Fiorelli, the first Scaramouch, couldn't do the Fandango, as that dance was confined to Spain during his lifetime. Another of life's great mysteries solved. Totnesmartin 13:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate
It says in the History section that it took three weeks to record yet the quote from Roy Thomas Baker in the Opera section says that it took 3 weeks to record that one part. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.58.133 (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

The Kenny Everett story is slightly inaccurate. Everett was given a promotional copy but Mercury never winked at Everett when the latter was asked not to play the record. Most sources instead state that the band really did not want Everett to play the record on his radio show. In the 2005 "Story of Bohemian Rhapsody" doco states it was Everett who winked at the band when he made his "promise" not to play the record. David French 05:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In the biography, Queen the Definitive Biography by Laura Jackson, it says that there are 200 overdubs, not 180.Cmos 12:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Cmos


 * More inaccuracies: In the last paragraph of the 'Promotional Video' part, it says that in the closing shot the opening picture from 'One Vision' is shown. Yes, it is, but it was also shown on the original video. TopGearFreak (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Other versions
That section listing covers is getting pretty long again. I wonder, is it really necessary at all?!?!?!

Live Performance; Music Video
There was a line in the article about the music video being played during the operatic section live. The original music video was never played behind the stage--big screens weren't even used until the Magic Tour to begin with. Instead, starting with the Jazz/Live Killers tour, the stage lights would flash in time with the music to provide a show for the audience during this section. During the Queen + Paul Rodgers tour, *a* video was played that contained bits and pieces of the music video, but not the whole thing--it was mostly a retrospective of Freddie Mercury's career. It's worth mentioning that professionally produced concert videos of the band generally have the music video superimposed over the flashing lights of the stage, but that's added in post-production, and viewing older, unreleased tapes like Earl's Court '77, Houston '77, and Vienna '84 show that there is clearly no video being played; not even a screen to play it on! 70.162.79.251 03:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

They just used the live recording for the operatic section until the Magic Tour. Plus, the video shown during the Queen + Paul Rodgers tour is a tribute to both Freddie Mercury and John Deacon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebfan1993 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Needs more refs.
Like the header says. The Popularity section has few references, unfortunately. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Theater Groups?
"Some select theater groups have been known to sing passionate renditions of the song to warm up for a show." -Deleted this, seems extraneous. Phoneclear 08:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Rock opera
I don't actually know much about rock operas, but from a brief look at the rock opera article, it seems to me that a rock opera is basically just a musical that uses lots of rock, though I could be wrong. So is this song actually rock opera-style? Or do people just call it that because it's a song by a rock band that has an opera-style section in it? --Foot Dragoon 00:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Rock opera" refers to an entire musical performance that consists primarily of well-known rock songs to drive the story. It's not a type of music so much as a type of musical. For instance, "We Will Rock You" (the play) is a rock opera consisting of songs by Queen. Make sense?Phoneclear 04:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.203.152 (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Notable Cover Versions
I don't think a "Notable Cover Versions" section is really objective. For instance, the section a couple months back detailing the cover of the song performed during some obscure play. I hardly consider a one-off performance of the song in a musical that maybe ten people have seen to be notable, but to the performers of the play, I'm sure it was. Maybe we should consider removing that section entirely and integrating a couple of covers into the "Popularity" section?Phoneclear 04:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the CollegeHumor.com version seemed quite large budget, and in fact became quite popular, as evidenced by the video views, especially on a site which sees much traffic. That's more of a parody - so perhaps the title could be altered? Here's the link for the aforementioned video - I can't stop laughing. It's so perfectly done.  Zchris87v  11:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

first music video
i think that distinction goes to the beatles. the beatles sent ed sullivan two music videos to be played on american national tv instead of performing live. the videos showcased the somgs paperback writer and rain. louis lopez, el paso, texas
 * Perhaps the Bohemian Rhapsody video was one of the first to be more than just a video of the band performing the song.--Timtak 09:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Were there two videos for this song?--Tim, 28 August, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.63.99 (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There were music videos released before Bohemian, (two songs from Queen's first album in 1973, Liar and Keep Yourself Alive, had videos) but this was the first time a video was shown on tv to sort of 'adverise' the song. Also, Queen were going on tour at the time and decided to make the video and show it on tv instead of having to go on themselves. Fact. TopGearFreak   Talk  19:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant the alternate video of the song with the flames. What's the history, if any, behind that version? -- Tim, 26 November, 2008.

Consistently ranks highly
In the Popularity section, the statement "The song consistently ranks highly in media reader polls of "the best singles of all-time" has had a [citation needed] tag added to it. It seems to me that it does not, because the remainder of the paragraph does a fairly successful job at backing up that opening statement. BigBadaboom0 07:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Timtak 08:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The song's name
The article is very detailed and gives much information about the song's background, but one major issue is totally missed - what stands behind the song's name? Gidip 21:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, nobody knows for sure what it exactly means. When asked anything about the subject of the song, Freddie would just say "I don't know" because he wanted the listener to come up with their own idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebfan1993 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the page Rhapsody (music), a rhapsody is a "work that is episodic yet integrated, free-flowing in structure, featuring a range of highly contrasted moods, colour and tonality." That's what Bohemian Rhapsody is, right? And in the page Bohemianism, it says bohemian can refer to a "marginalized or impoverished artist, writer, musician, or actor." Would this describe the person that the song is about? Putting these two together might be where the title came from then. 66.204.54.92 (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the 'History and recording' section covers the title with a citation to a reliable source. The JPS talk to me  10:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The various sections of the song
Regarding the various sections of the song discussed in the article - their names appear to be WP:original research - also, it would make more musical sense to refer to their start and finish points in bars ("measures", for all your Americans out there ;-), rather than in seconds...--feline1 13:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They seem to be fitting, as they are named after the musical style that they follow. Perhaps this should be noted. Though the sections aren't actually named, they are each representative of those styles mentioned.  Zchris87v  11:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to say that the quote "The song has no chorus, instead consisting of seemingly disjointed sections including operatic segments, an a cappella passage, and a heavy rock solo." is biased in the fact that the word choice conveys a sense of convolution and the sense that the song has no focus and is poorly patched together. I motion it be rewrote as "The song has no chorus, instead consisting of three main parts: an operatic segment, an a cappella passage, and a heavy rock solo."

Sorry for responding twice on thread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firewall012 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Bris Milah
Bris Milah (alternately Brit Milah - either way a 'bris') REALLY IS the "Covenant of Circumcision," perhaps this was a joke by the band or a double entendre? Anyway, it was a sincere edit, and not an attempt at vandalism. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.176.249.232 (talk • contribs) 9 November 2007

I would also like to say that the quote "The song has no chorus, instead consisting of seemingly disjointed sections including operatic segments, an a cappella passage, and a heavy rock solo." is biased in the fact that the word choice conveys a sense of convolution and the sense that the song has no focus and is poorly patched together. I motion it be rewrote as "The song has no chorus, instead consisting of three main parts: an operatic segment, an a cappella passage, and a heavy rock solo." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firewall012 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Cover by Montserrat Caballé and Bruce Dickinson
There's a cover of Bohemian Rhapsody, by Montserrat Caballé and Bruce Dickinson. I think it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.50.235 (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Heavy Metal??
The 4th part isn't heavy metal, it's hard rock... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.40.117 (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just noted that myself. At least by my understanding of the genres, the fourth section is hard rock and not at all heavy metal, like the person above stated. I will change shortly if there is no opposition. Iamthedeus (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Taylor's high note
The article states "Roger Taylor famously tops the last note with a Bb6, or B-flat in the sixth octave, a note in the soprano range. Taylor used falsetto to reach the note, a common practice for countertenors."

I'm pretty certain this is actually Bb5, i.e. two semitones below Soprano C (C6), which is still impressive for a male vocalist (although whether its 'famous' is debatable'. I don't think the line needs a citation since pitch can be measured objectively, but the line should be corrected if I'm not mistaken. Fool on the hill (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is 'famous' and quite remarkable vocally - from a structural point of view the (initial) tonic being stated that high (as the highest note) drives it forward into the guitar solo. What would Shenker say I wonder?

It is a Bb5. The mistake probably comes fromthe fact it would be written as a Bb6, as per all male voices in the treble clef. I'll change it.

--77.97.10.32 (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a Bb5. I'm pretty positive that Countertenor music is written in concert pitch, however, as a Countertenor usually does not require to enter the lower half of the third octave (Tenors may go down to C3 or lower, depending on individual range. Siegfrid, from Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen, for example, required a range of A2-C#5.) To sum up, a Countertenor is in the Alto-Soprano range, thus writting it an octave higher seems unnecessary. Either way, you may, of course, correct any false statements in my sentence (hopefully you have some pragmatic evidence attached to a correction)! Thank you. --Basstrombonebfd (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mountain Dew Commercial
Anyone want to add the Mountain Dew Commercial link? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe6NDOGBNmU ElMeroEse (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Length
Honestly, if you're going to have a "structure" section that long, then you should 'ave enough to round it out. By the lookers, you 'ave 4 resources and 11 notes. 'Ats nothing to have such a long structure section. You should:

1)cut "structure" down to balance it with the rest of the article, or...

2)make the rest of the article longer to balance out the long structure section.

Either way...yeah. It's a great song, Bohemian Rhapsody, and deserves a great article. Thanks. A lot. 01:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)  Kodster  (Talk) (Haha, I changed it around!)

Length of Song
I read somewhere that "Bohemian Rhapsody" was over 7 minutes long, but was cut down to 5:55 for single release. Can someone verify this? -- Tim, 27 April, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.63.99 (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The studio version of the song is 5:55 minutes long. It wasn't cut down in length for a single release; it's length is one of the things that is notable about it's popularity as a single. As for the 7 minutes claim, that may have been an earlier version, but I don't know for sure. I hope that this has answered your question. Krobertj (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Cultural sgnificance?
Does the article really cover the cultural significance of the song?

Food Rocks
Should it be menchened that it was parodied in Disneyland's Food Rocks attraction? - 72.9.19.42 (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Confusing sentences in History and recording section
In the History and recording section, one part reads as follows: "From then, every major radio station played the song in full. The track proved popular and was released with "I'm in Love with My Car" as the B-side.[4] or depict events just preceding an execution, pointing to Albert Camus's novel, The Stranger in which a young man confesses to an impulsive murder and has an epiphany before he is executed, as probable inspiration"

It appears that part of a sentence describing the story was moved. Does anyone know how it was supposed to read? Dewey Finn (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I found the problem. There was a reference tag that was broken. I corrected it. Dewey Finn (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

lyrics? I need a lyrics..
lyrics can you provide me using this site? Im block from viewing other sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.150.191.2 (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but for copyright reasons we cannot include the complete lyrics. The JPS talk to me  20:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Genre
Why has the song's genre been changed from progressive rock/ hard rock/ heavy metal to simply rock? That's not very specific, and it doesn't truly reflect how the song sounds. Krobertj (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I switched it to progressive rock.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In genre controversies like this, to avoid original research, it is best to cite reliable sources. Are the any citations for the genre? The JPS talk to me  10:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no genre controversy. It's just "Rock" isn't detailed enough as a genre for a song like Bohemian Rhapsody. One of the links is "Progressive Rock Songs." This song is clearly progressive rock.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ballad Section
The Ballad section explain that after the ... as if nothing really matters... there is a repetition of the Bb Vamp. But actually the song have a little ostinato before the vamp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.171.229 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this fit in better as a direct quote from the refs, rather than as a transfer to body text. &mdash;  La Pianista  (T•C) 22:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks Pianista! Top  Gear  Freak  16:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but in an internationally regonized encyclopedia we need all the details in their articules —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.182.161 (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

John Deacon and backing vocals
He really did some vocals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.237.153.226 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Hey Jude" piano
The statement that BR was performed on the same piano as Hey Jude needs to be referenced. The current source seems to have a bank of trivia "facts", one of which is shown (at random) when the page is loaded. I don't want to keep mashing F5 until I see the statement – and the website looks nothing more than a fan site. I do, however, think this is a really interesting point (if true) – hopefully we can reference this with verifiable source. Cycle~ (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Establish Consensus on John's Vocals
Can we try to establish consensus on whether John actually sang on this record [or in any other record]? Several sources say he didn't, and indeed, Brian himself said that John "was not a singer". Queenie 20:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Simple response is: what are these sources? The JPS talk to me  22:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Several interviews on DVD that I can't link to for obvious reasons. To quote May, "John was not a singer. He took care of the arrangement, but he left the singing to us." I think it was on the "behind the rhapsody" part of GVH1. Queenie  12:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK -- it would help if you could check them out and specify the exact source(s). The JPS talk to me  07:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

French Single Version
"...There was a single version released only in France on a 7", cut down to 3:18, edited by John Deacon, but beyond the initial pressing of this French single, the only version recognized is the album version, at 5:55 - allegedly, this French single started right at the piano intro, and edited out the operetta part...." Is this verifiable? -- Tim 8 April, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.131.36.110 (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

best seller?
It was not the best seller until band aid came along (that honour goes to mull of kintyre). The 2 million sales were spread between 1975 original release and 1991 re-release (approx 1m each time). Instead, could say that it is 3rd best seller of all time, for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.174.39 (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Source? The JPS talk to me  09:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Million-Selling_Singles

the sales were clearly spread between the two releases in some proportion. i seem to remeber seeing elsewhere it was more or less even split. Even if it wasn't even split, the new text is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.174.39 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we don't accept ourselves as a source because we don't consider ourselves inherently reliable. Is there a better source? The JPS talk to me  07:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have just made an edit along these lines. It was definitely not the UK's best seller at any time - "She Loves You" (1963) was usurped by "Mull Of Kintyre" (1977), then "Band Aid" (1985). Bo-Rap has accumulated its figures over a long period. An on-line search will support this, eg http://ukcharts.20m.com/bestsell.html. If there remains any doubt, I would still think it best to leave it as amended rather than revert to what is certainly erroneous. MegdalePlace (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's another one, which shows separarte figures for the two main phases of sales: http://www.everyhit.com/record4.html

Analysis by Two Music Scholars
Are the critiques by Sheila Whiteley and Judith Peraino appropriate for Wikipedia? It seems to me that they a biased explanation of the song's lyrics rather than fact regarding the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annie.barber (talk • contribs) 07:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Criticism from reliable sources is acceptable, so long as the prose clearly signposts it as such, and not facts. e.g, "Music scholar Sheila Whiteley suggests that..." Published academic work is acceptable; queenfan123 writing in some forum isn't. The JPS talk to me  10:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "reliable sources" is misleading. They're just putting forward some idiosyncratic and arbitrary interpretation no more "reliable" than anothers. In fact, the straightforward reading is that you have some guy who doesn't care about anything, takes chances with someone, it comes to murder, he's actually sorry for what his Mom will think, goes to what he perceives as a confusing trial, decides to get his back up and blame the victim and how-can-you-do-this, but instead of getting away with it, he winds up going to execution, thus the final and melancholy tone of the final 'ballad'. There's any number of reasonable interpretations. There's no reason to think Whiteley has any more of a handle on this than anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.158.169 (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would have been best to reply at the bottom of this thread? I agree that these two scholars should not be taken as any definitive interpretation. Again, the prose does not suggest that they are. However, these writers have more credibility than some random person on the web. They are acceptable by Wikipedia's standards. However, additional references to a wider range of credible writers would be welcome. The JPS talk to me  10:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe there would be a better place for lyrical analyis? I've spent pretty much the past two days researching the song for a paper, and each time I read the article it seemed abrupt to switch back and forth from reading precise technical aspects of the production/musicality of the song to bits regarding the song's potential to be autobiographic and/or homoerotic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annie.barber (talk • contribs) 12:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * At the moment the two aspects are discussed alongside each other. Perhaps there could be a separate section for analysis (by established scholars). As a lecturer in higher education, I would question the appropriacy of using Wikipedia for researching a paper, though. The JPS talk to me  13:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Annie.barber. This is an encyclopedia, a place for fact or at the very least significant opinion.  Whiteley's analysis is far from that.  In fact the nicest comment one could possibly make is that it is tendentious.  This is simply not the forum for it.  This is especially true in light of the fact that we already have statements from the band that the lyrics are personal and the Iran leaflet.  I simply fail to see why the inclusion of any further analysis is at all necessary barring the discovery of some heretofore unknown interpretation that can be reasonably called significant, well-known, or widely accepted (none of which apply to Whiteley's).NeverWorker (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As a new editor (your account was created merely to agree another editor with less than 10 edits...) I can only suggest that you familiarise yourself further with Wikipedia's conventions and guidelines. This page has been peer reviewed by knowledgeable and experienced Wikipedia contributors. I have attempted to politely explain to you why published scholarly writing is appropriate, if signposted as such. The article covers the band's thoughts on the song; it is neccessary that others are included too to make a balanced article about an important cultural artefact. The JPS talk to me  09:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The claims I and others are making is that, while properly cited, Whitely's theories are not significant and do not improve the balance of an article about an "important cultural artefact." Rather that they are fringe theories that are not worth significant mention. While you are correct in that I have not edited wikipedia before (though the account was created years ago, I simply haven't used it-nice ad hominem btw), this does not mean that I am unfamilliar with standards of acedemic writing and encyclopedia writing in particular.  To include such a source simply because it is from somebody not involved with Queen as if it is a reliable opinion worthy of consideration is fundamentaly misleading.  I understand that you have a certain hesitation to removing content that you added (between 11 and 13 October, 2008).  It is not that your efforts towards improving wikipedia are not appreciated, rather that others have different opinions.  In regards to knowledgable people reviewing this article, by all means, let one of them post that they agree with you.  None have.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeverWorker (talk • contribs) 23:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Established Wikipedians have peer reviewed this. Only two, including yourself, have complained. There is little point in the AOL "me too" menatility. What standards are you applying in your assertion that "Whitely's theories are not significant"? If it is your opinion, then it appears to be a violation of WP:OR. This policy regulates against the undue prominence or censorship of published material that is based on your own opinion. Are you saying that 'opinion' or 'interpretation' is "fundamentaly misleading" if it does not come from from the band? Do you expect every critical comment to come from the band? Sorry, but that's how art works. Artist creates product → scholars interpret it. The JPS talk to me  09:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That Whiteley's interpretation is classifiable as fringe can be seen simply by search for the work in Google Scholar. In doing so, you will find that the book (not limited to her paper) has been cited exactly three times, well below Whiteley's usual (quite respectably in the fifties).  Aditionally, I must take offense at being accused of having an "AOL 'me too menatility [sic.]" (again, nice ad hominem). I fail to see why expressing agreement should ever be necessarily construed as any form of mentality, especially when, as you pointed out, this particular bandwagon seems rather empty.  As far as AOL is concerned, I simply fail to see the relevance.  Does one's internet provider indicate the validity of his views (also, see preceding parenthetical)? As far as my supposed rejection of the validity of critical interpretations goes, I never said any such thing.  In fact, I explicitly wrote in my first comment that the inclusion of a significant, widely accepted interpretation would be welcome.  I should like to thank you however, for pointing out to me that critical interpretaion is "how art works." I never knew that.  I'd never before this day heard mention of Beardsley and Wimsatt's paper on the so-called "Intentional Fallacy" completely rejecting the artist's priviledge in interpretation.  I had no knowledge of the interesting and nuanced discussion aroused debating whether it is in fact a fallacy.  I've certainly never encountered the sloganized deconstructionist simplification "Death to the Author."  Certainly, I've never considered that while the afformentioned views are primarily associated with literary criticism, one can easily generalize their arguments and apply them to the criticism of the other arts.  And it goes without saying that I have no familiarity with certain works such as Wagner's Ring that show their true depth primarily through reinterpretion in numerous (often contradictory) ways. Upon rereading the article, I believe the poster below (Humblebum75) has the right idea.  The main issue is not that Whiteley is brought, but that the article implies she has a certain authority.  This could easily be alieviated by simply mentioning her interpretation broadly without breaking down the song line by line or section by section.  Additionally, one could question the appropriateness of including a piece-by-piece exegetical section in the first place.  Numerous works with arguably greater artistic depth and cultural significance (I know this statement will irk those with postmodernist leanings-such a person may feel free to change this to equal artistic depth, etc.) do not get this treatment, presumably because it is out of place in an encyclopedia article.  I find it difficult to believe that "Bohemian Rhapsody" needs such a section but Hamlet and Gretchen am Spinnrade do not. On this note, I will take my leave of this discussion for several reasons.  First, I simply do not care enough to spend any more time on this.  Second, the issue under discussion reflects one of the greatest weaknesses in Wikipedia's open system, namely the lack of a professional editorial staff to excersize executive judgement in situations where slavishly following the rules has poor results.  And finally, there is some truth to the old saw that arguing on the internet is akin to participation in a certain amateur sporting event.  Good day to you sir. NeverWorker (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the lyrical analysis should definitely be moved into a separate section from discussion of the musical structure of the song. It blurs the line between objective and subjective discussion, and having it interspersed throughout that section suggests that Whiteley and Periano's homoerotic analysis of the song is in some way definitive. It would be desirable to include further scholarly analysis to balance Whiteley and Periano, but it would be impractical to do so in the current format without derailing the description of the song's actual musical structure. -Humblebum75 (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Humblebum75 offers a practical solution (although, interestingly, another brand new user arriving at this discussion...). The JPS talk to me  21:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not "brand new". My account was created a few months ago to comment on a different article. Of all the users who potentially could join in this discussion, and who might care enough about the topic to do so, a statistically significant proportion will be new users, or users with less than 10 edits. If users had to wait until their post count was high enough before expressing an opinion or making constructive criticisms of existing content, no-one would be able to make any contributions at all. Hopefully my expressed viewpoint and suggestion have merit despite the size of my post count. -Humblebum75 (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just making the observation that this discussion is attracting a disproportionate amount of users with less than ten edits. It is rather unusual. The JPS talk to me  12:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that that is unusual (particularly since the subject is such a popular piece of music). Nonetheless, I maintain that the article would be well served by splitting the current section on "Composition and Analysis" into 2 separate sections covering musical structure (objective) and lyrical analysis (subjective). -Humblebum75 (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I never would have imagined my comments would lead to such a heated discussion. I hope I wasn't seen as complaining about the way the article was written, because that was not my intention. Were I that crass, I would have rudely removed anything I found offensive without consulting others beforehand. Anyway, most of the editting I've done to Wikipedia involves fixing glaringly obvious vandalism, broken links, or grammar errors inherited by editing only part of a sentence. I'm just a student in college and don't consider myself much of an expert in anything. I've had an entire summer to think about it, and am not currently sleep deprived from exams. My final conclusion on the matter, after reading the entire article slowly and carefully with a refreshed mind is as follows: Some of what Whitely and Periano are cited as saying is perfectly objective and belongs exactly where it's at. However, some parts are very objective and would be better suited in a separate section where they would better complement each other, anyway. If need be, I'll pull aside the statements that are overly interpretive and compose a proposition for a new section, but I won't have time until after school starts back if I want to do a good job writing it. Annie.barber (talk) 5:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Phrase
People, Don´t you think that the truncated phrase need a music audio sample to explain the conection with the repetition of the vamp? --Xopauxo wiki (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AIDS
Just wondering if there's a reference out there about the coincidence of the song being played again, and the conditions of Freddy Mercury's AIDS, and the similarity of his condition in the lyrics, e.g. "Body's aching all the time" Hires an editor (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Very unlikely. He wrote the song in the 70s, and according to his partner Jim Hutton, was only diagnosed with AIDS in 1987. --Humblebum75 (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Genre
I don't believe that "rock" is specific enough for Bohemian Rhapsody. Just my two cents.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The field isn't supposed to be specific. It is supposed to be general. Especially when the field is constantly trolled by genre-warriors who keep adding foolish nonsense like progressive rock to the box. Rock is the description of all Queen albums and most of their song articles. It is the best description for all and is never wrong no matter which Queen page its used in. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't wrong, and I don't disagree with it. I was thinking that since Bo Rhap isn't a "traditional" rock song, we could detail it a bit. But since Queen is a "genre-jumping" band, "rock" is good enough for me.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of anonymous users changing the genre here (the latest moron adding opera). Is there any way to lock just that bit from anonymous edits?. NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 17:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Source of internet studio masters?
There are complete studio masters for this song leaked out on the internet bootlegging scene. Where did those come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.148 (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Error under "History and Recording"
Under "History and Recording" the article states "The tapes were passed over the recording heads so frequently that the oxide layer began to wear off, and the normally opaque tapes turned nearly transparent.[9]" as fact but the SOS article that is referenced does not confirm this: "We'd all previously heard the tales about the 'Bo Rhap' multitrack being like a patchwork quilt and worn so thin that it was translucent when held up to the light" which sounds more like a repeated legend intended to highlight the notion that the original recordings were overdubbed and bounced down much more than usual.

The article then continues to detail a situation that occurred during a re-mastering of the song for a surround DVD release. The original multitrack tapes were recorded on Ampex 456 tapes that, at the time, had been manufactured with a new formulation that replaced whale oil (due to environmental pressure) with a synthetic alternative. This caused the oxide on the tapes to shed onto the playback heads as the synthetic oil did not do a very good job of keeping the oxide bound to the tapes over time. Baking the tapes in Abbey Road's ovens for four days sufficiently conditioned the tapes to keep the oxide from shedding and they resumed their remastering process. (Paragraphs 7, 8, & 9) I believe the error on the WikiPedia article is due to some confusion on the author's part after reading this part of the article.

I think the original statement that claims the tapes were worn to transparency due to an unusually high number of overdubs and bounce downs are not supported by the given reference. Also, wearing most of the oxide from a recording tape to the point of transparency would destroy the originally recorded content as it is the oxide coating that holds the recorded information, not the clear plastic tape.

I think that stating that the tape was worn until "nearly transparent" is inaccurate, or an exaggerated legend, at best and should be removed. 71.77.64.71 (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Mike

The Muppets version
Shouldn't it be mention somewhere? --24.78.179.4 (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there third party sources that indicate the notability of this? In other words, has it been discussed in an article or a book? Otherwise we're going to end up with an unverified list of when the song as been covered, or used. The JPS talk to me 

a refernece should be added
Though some artists, including Queen themselves

we could change it to Though some artists, like the Beatles...

i mean they really made the first commercial music videos right after they pioneered the thing with their movie a hard day's night and freddy was a huge beatles fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.243.251 (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Rm garbage?
The edit on 03:56, 4 December 2009 by 81.170.65.40 removes factual information from the "Hard rock" section with the comment "Rm garbage." While the facts may be incorrect or unsupportable, I would expect either a "citation needed" or a mention here, rather than simply removing information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.139.96 (talk)