Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > SINT: Intelligent discussion

forum rss feed
Author

Boy Thomas Raker user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 969 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Dec 07, 09:07 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Given that the original thread for SINT is now 7 pages long, some people may not want to look through all of it. As someone posted that we're seeing some INTELLIGENT discussion concerning Say it's not true, I've taken the liberty of starting a new thread where I'd like to see why people feel how they do about the song.

With the passing of a few days, we've all been able to listen to this and get a distance from the excitement of hearing new music, so I'm interested in where people see this song in the pantheon of Queen music, and why. To start the ball rolling, and I started getting into Queen in '75 so my biases are on the table, this sounds like an out take from a Roger solo or MIH era album. Well played musically, which Queen always delivers, but I find it lyrically and musically to be paint by numbers. It may be unfair to compare a song from older men in 2007 to something from young guys hungry to make their mark in the early '70s, but apart from stylistic differences, I couldn't see this song ever getting off the ground in the old days. Brian plays amazing guitar on this track, but I think he could do the "Brian May" stuff in his sleep. For me, because of the naff lyrics and overall lack of excitement (IMHO only), I'd place this song in the bottom 10% of Queen efforts. Let's hear some differing opinions, but let's try to back them up with reason and not attack people who hate it/love it.


You know, good times are now.
Benn user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1332 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Dec 07, 09:59 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

BTR,

Well, I had a single listen here at work and haven't yet managed to get it to CD from the download yet. From the lyrical structure of the song, it's cleearly a-typical Roger Taylor material; I wouldn't be surprised if it was written (the germ of the idea) around the time of the "Happiness" album.

I'm not certain that I can even *consider it* alongside any of the material "Queen" did. After all, only half of "Queen" play on it whereas NOBY did manage to include three quarters of them. In essence it's not a bit like any of the material "Queen" created.

What it *IS*, is good (at this point) "Queen + Paul Rodgers" material. In that regard, I'd completely change the structure of the vocalists performances and hand the whole lot over to Paul to sing. He was brought in to the band as the vocalist and ought to be doing the job. On SINT, he sounds like a hired hand given a bit-part.

I've always believed Brian's vocals to be *EMBARASSING* to say the least and at no point has he ever been good enough to be a front man. The BM Band shows suffered greatly because his concentration was taken away from playing the *AMAZING* guitar leads he's been responsible for for so long.

As for Roger, I've always loved his solo material (more than that of any of the other embers), but the Queen + PR shows proved that his voice is on the wane these days. IILWMC, once a gem and great showcase for his voice was, again, suffering because he can't reach the register he used to.

Paul, as a professional vocalist and posessor of one of the very best rock voices of all time, needs to be exploited by "Queen + Paul Rodgers" and allowed to do his job.

This is a new band with a new future; it's a tad unfair to try to build them in to the glories of "Queen".

As a starting point for them, it's a reasonable effort though. Needs to go *UP* from here.


Benn
Fenderek user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4924 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Dec 07, 10:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I agree about Paul- he was brought in as a singer- he should sing. And sing he can!
Brian's part is... I dunno, weak. Roger's live usually was saving this song, on the record it also sounds not so good. And this hybrid of three voices also doesn't feel very natural. I'd hope that we willl not have any of that on a new album. they have a lead singer, they should let him sing. Brian is a brilliant guitar player, Roger- drummer- they should focus on their instruments.
Lyrics are bad, song is simple, almost too simple for my taste.
I liked the production of the heavier bit- a lot of guitars, nice sound- gives me hope fo rthe whole album, hoping that they still have that ROCK in them.
Oh- i absolutely hate teh keyboards at the begining, so wishy-washy... I think I actually prefered the simple, live version- at least it wasn't trying to pretend to be something it isn't...

YourValentine user not visiting Queenzone.com
registered July 27th 2001
YourValentine
Deity: 7611 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Dec 07, 10:25 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Other than many other fans I really like the lyrics of the song and I did like the simple acoustic guitar-only live version from day 1 (46664 concert). I think Roger has a talent to create songs from personal experience which are not super sentimental but simple and touching (see "Old Friends" which I like ten times better than NOBY)

The new version: I don't like the echoes in the vocals at the beginning and I don't like Brian's cheesy vocals. I always find Brian's oversentimental vocals hard to bear. I like the sound when guitar/drums take off and I think Paul Rodgers fits nicely into the general sound of the second part of the song. My main problem with the recording is that IMO this particular song requires a more subtle sound.

Apart from that there is a good communication of Queen sound MIH style and Paul Rodgers - what a great singer he is. You cannot compare it to a Queen song because the Freddie Mercury quality control is gone and it would be unfair to compare. After listening to this song I have bigger confidence in the upcoming album than I had before. Let the guitars roar and Paul Roger do his stuff.


I do not want any google ads here.

Boy Thomas Raker user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 969 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Dec 07, 10:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Excellent! Three smart replies with no name calling, we're making progress here!


You know, good times are now.
Another Roger (re) user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 442 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Dec 07, 10:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I dont think we can say a lot about the forthcoming album based on this song. This song was a little rushed in the studio according to Brian May. And I seriously doubt that this song will be on the new album. They wouldnt give away the best songs for free like this.

With that said I dont think Say its not true is bad. There are worse songs in the Queen catalogue. Like body language, dancer, Dont lose your head, fun it...etc.

I believe that the new album will have mainly Paul Rodgers on vocals. Roger and Brian will do harmonies, and sing one or 2 songs each. And I think the album will be Rock'n Roll with a blues touch. It will be fresh and no more singing about the past. We dont need anymore Freddie tribute songs. At least not sad ones. I hope thats the path they are taking. We have to look forward now :)

In that sense Say its not true cant be compared to what we are waiting for. But hey. This is only competent speculation :)


Basically blind em and deaf em in the first 10 minutes, and while they are recovering from that put in the less good songs
Benn user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1332 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Dec 07, 11:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Fenderek, re:

>>I think I actually prefered the simple, live version

Yep - and is why it would have made a great *Roger Taylor* album track. Not certain that even the "simple" version would have warranted a release outside of the confines of an album though - the lyrics don't really tell the story Roger has promoted for me - you only know what its about if you are a "Queen" fan or have listened to one of the interviews promoting it. If you were to hear it as a complete newbie, you'd be a bit in the dark and move on.

YourValentine, re:

>>a good communication of Queen sound MIH style

Yes, spot on. And it's the same sound that NOBY managed to re-create too. An open, wide sound but slightly over-produced for my liking.

I'd hoped that "Queen + Paul Rodgers" would have tried to go for a really stripped-down sound in order to really highlight and emphasise that they are indeed a new band and the quality of their own individual musicianship. Almost a "Live In The Studio" sound without Spike Edney drenching everything with bells and whistles. Still, too early to tell how they will sound until more material is here to judge. Plenty of positives for me.

BTR, re:

>>Three smart replies with no name calling

Now, come on........give it a couple of days and there will be someone popping out of the woodwork to spoil things

';-}

Another Roger, re:

>>I dont think we can say a lot about the forthcoming album based on this song. This song was a little rushed in the studio according to Brian May.

I have to disagree - I think it's points toward how they will approach the structure of forthcoming material. Sadnly, it appears, following on from the live shows, all three will handle vocal duties. Whether this is from an ego point of view, homage to the fact that Brian and Roger both sang on "Queen" albums or they are receiving poor advice / feedback from certain sections, I have no idea.

>>And I seriously doubt that this song will be on the new album. They wouldnt give away the best songs for free like this.

I think it will - it'll be another excuse to push the MPT charity and the "AIDS" message again. Whether this is good for the album or the music, I don't know, but I'd like to think that they wouldn't leave out a great Paul Rodgers performance for this track. I'd like to think that they were more inclined to *give away* the poor material and save the best for the album, but, commercially, it wouldn't make sense - they need to get back some of the outlay in making SINT somehow!


Benn
steven 35638 user not visiting Queenzone.com
Band ten hut!
steven 35638
Deity: 2132 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Dec 07, 11:35 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

In regards to the upcoming album, I sincerely hope it won't be depressing and full of songs like 'Say It's Not True'. Although the song was touching and a real tear jerker, I think we could do with some upbeat rocker material. For example, I'd love to see a song like 'I'm Ready' on the new album. That song, for all those unaware, is a slick little rocker that has a touch of both blues and jazz. Brian does some stuff with his guitar that is reminiscent to that of 'Good Company'.

Now, when it comes to Say It's Not True, I quite like it. It starts off rather slow, but it does pick up after the first two minutes. It kind of reminds me of, God forbid, In The Lap of the Gods...Revisited. That's because the song builds and builds until the listener is swept with emotion.

The quality of the song isn't terrific per se, but it is a wonderful start for a wonderful band. I give the song 7/10.


"Fuck today, it's tomorrow." - Freddie Mercury
Roger's Beard user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 315 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Dec 07, 11:54 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Oh dear. No smart alec replies yet. Well let me give one - or not.

I'd given up on the QPR project and had pretty much decided it was about time they gave up too (after all it's taking blinkin ages and we'll all be dead soon), and concentrated on "real" Queen; either the promised anthology boxset, another MIH style album made from unheard tracks, or simply surround mixes of the rest of the albums. BUT, the release of Say It's Not True has re-whet my anticipation for the project. If Paul doesn't warble his vocals much, I'll be a happy man.

Maybe THEN, they'll get back to doing some "real" Queen!

Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Dec 07, 11:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I thought Queen went into the studio to record the new album. If this is a result of that, then I am extremely suspicious. This does not sound like a track that was recorded AND engineered by the same person. Is it possible that this track was simply recorded in pieces, and not together as they had originally informed us?

Who is playing that keyboard part anyway, and what is he using? I would think that they could afford a decent patch, but this sounds like they dug up The Miracle keyboards and fired them back up.

Sorry, Brian, I didn't realize your "studio" was your laptop. I'll still buy the album, but was kind of expecting more from Queen.



Rien user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2204 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Dec 07, 13:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

knowing this song from the Q+PR tour we can hear how this song has changed. To me the frailness voice of the original song really did make the message (desperation) come across and I really liked that.
Now we can hear how the new version has given a new direction to the song. For me this new version is great too.

Though Brian might have sung a bit stronger his voice is perhaps at its best when he sings with this softer mood. He tries to reflect the emotion of the lyrics and I think he succeeds though it sounds a bit forced.

The build up of the song to its climax is nice I think. Perhaps even great. Agreed the guitar is not very innovative but there must be put a Queen-related mark in the song for a wider audience.

It takes a while for Paul Rodgers to take part of the song but it's exactly where it should be. He also ads his own trademark as he should ("say i-it's not ri-i-ight"). Great powerful voice.

The video is breathtaking. Completely matches the lyrics. Did you see how Brian's first line is almost in-sync with the crying boy?

The song's for free (for now) to bring attention to Mandela's cause. Must be appreciated.


Feel free to visit my site - http://www.mercuryparadise.com

(Come into my life, it's a MercuryParadise)
gnomo user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 743 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Dec 07, 13:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Micrówave wrote:

Sorry, Brian, I didn't realize your "studio" was your laptop
They've been using Roger's studio for all the new recording sessions, actually...


--

Gnomo

(... any way the wind blows ...)
Al TurHao user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 168 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Dec 07, 14:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote


Well, here are my 3 points:

Some very interesting points on this topic, like the "Freddie Mercury Control". :)
It's true that Freddie always helped Roger (and some of John) with his songs. You cannot possibly believe that Roger came up with some of the complicated chords on Radio GaGa. It's simply not his style. (for further info, I recommend Sebastian's analysis site).
Now that the FM control is over, songs tend to appear in a more simple arrangment. The chord sequence is as basic as it can be (very similar to the chorus of Dear Mr. Murdoch and Lennon's War is Over), even when the song takes flight with PR, we are flying around 2-3 chords. (which, per se, is OK).

Still, the thing that has shocked me the most was the awful production. Almost everything in the production can be heavily criticised, which didn't happen before. For instance, the strings at the beggining not only they sound bad, but they are poorly played!!

As for the vocals, Roger and Brian suffer from the Keith Richards Syndrome. With that, they are wasting their most precious resource: Paul Rodgers as a singer. Even if they sing 2 songs each on the forthcoming album... is too much!
They should stick to their capacities as instrumentists and backing singers.



Being a Scolar when it comes to Queen...
ern2150 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 302 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Dec 07, 14:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Forgive me for not going digging for it, but is the poster who argued (fairly eloquently) that the original SINT was way overrated posting in this discussion? That might have even been a discussion on Queenonline (RIP) and not here.

I think one of his disappointments was the preachiness, which, in the _original_, I think is balanced by a sense of personal loss, or even just plain getting used to some preaching in any Roger song.

This new studio version, however, _especially_ with Brian's intonation, sounds preachy, and is very "Brian's Soapbox." In my opinion that's not a bad thing (though you might argue he's "preaching to the choir"), but it does change the balance of the song.

And I would be 100% behind the song if Paul didn't do that thing (modulate?) on "me-hee-hee-hee-hee-ee-ee." But I think if you get Paul, you're going to get that. Ya cayn't stap tha rahk!

As it stands I'm about 90% behind it :)

Oh and one more thing. I used to think there was a spectrum of opinion, with "NO QUEEN" on one end, "QUEEN FOREVER (no matter who's singing)" on the other, and "Roger+Brian team solo" and "Q+PR for now" on opposite sides of the middle.
This track has introduced a whole other band of that spectrum, "Q+PR as long as PR is the lead most of the time." I'm kinda surprised by that, especially since people seemed to group around the other opinions above regarding the tour.

Mike Label user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 162 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Dec 07, 16:10 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

SINT suffers from bad production, true. It's not a particularly good song either, and neither Brian nor Roger are good singers (at least today).
All this has been said before, I know. I tried to listen without prejudice - keep in mind, I've been a Queen fan for 34 years by now, have seen Queen with Freddie many times, have been to Brian and Roger solo several times, seen Queen+PR twice, and I'll buy anything that has Brian and/or Roger on it ... but I still find the new song dull, boring, lame, just disappointing ...
A few hours ago I watched part of QRM and was (again)especially thrilled when Save Me came up - now that has it all: great song, great vocals, great band performance ... I guess we'll never see and hear anything remotely close though it may be unfair to compare the incomparable (Freddie of course).
Just one last point: I thought that NOBY was really good.
Mike

monty-- user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 23 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Dec 07, 16:39 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Well, I think the first part is horrific. I can't even comprehend why accomplished musicians such as Queen would play such an awful synth in that way. Virtually no production in there. You hear a lengthy note with the synth and then, bam! It stops! No fade out. It is awful. Lyrically..it's ok. Straight from the Roger Taylor book of Happiness?/Electric Fire couplets and stanzas. Very basic. Very standard. As for Brian's guitar playing? Don't even go there. There is absolutely no innovation in there. It's just your bog standard 'Brian May-esque' playing up and down the fret board. You JUST KNOW he's done this type of stuff in his sleep. Virtually no melody to it either. The song only comes alive when Paul starts to sing.
Every song on Back To The Light, Happiness?, Made In Heaven, Another World, and Electric Fire are better than this.
Queen have not created songs in years and it shows. Too much fucking around with Robbie Williams, Pepsi ads, diva wannabees in musicals, boy bands and reality TV shows have turned them into the absolute shite composers they are today.

PieterMC user not visiting Queenzone.com
PieterMC
Deity: 3931 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Dec 07, 16:52 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

monty-- wrote:

Well, I think the first part is horrific. I can't even comprehend why accomplished musicians such as Queen would play such an awful synth in that way.


Perhaps you should go back and re-listen to the AKOM and Miracle albums.

Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6327 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Dec 07, 17:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I love the song and I loved the version. I obviously disagree with the "Queen" name, I still think that they should've released it as Rodgers, Taylor & May (or Taylor, Rodgers & May, or May, Rodgers & Taylor, etc). But overlooking that aspect (which doesn't affect the music itself), my overall observations:

- I like the fact each one sings a bit, and I do wish Queen (the actual Queen, with Roger, Freddie, John and Brian) had done that more often (e.g. 'It's Late', each one having a 'scene').

- It makes me wonder how would other Roger's ballads sound with Brian's voice (e.g. 'Days of Our Lives', 'Foreign Sand').

- The guitar sound is great, but I think Brian tried too hard to be Queen-esque, being one of the very very very few cases where he did NOT work for the song. In that sense, it deserves "only" 9.5 out of 10 IMO.

- Great arrangement, but it's far from being the "epic" Dr May described.

- They desperately need a bass player (even if it's a session one and doesn't get included into the "Queen" name). Not necessarily John, but anybody who's capable of playing a professional melodic thing there.

- I think an acoustic piano would've been much better than the background synth. Brian's a very good keyboard player, and so is Paul, so it's sort of a waste putting that simple pad IMO.

- It's a very good 'trade card' for the collaboration between the three of them.

- Good drums, but I don't like the way they mixed the acoustic part.

- In spite of being quite detailed, it's not too dense or overwhelming, so they did a fine job all in all.


John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Dec 07, 17:18 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sebastian wrote:

- I think an acoustic piano would've been much better


Thank you. I completely agree.

Haystacks Calhoun II user not visiting Queenzone.com
Haystacks Calhoun II
Bohemian: 930 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Dec 07, 17:56 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Yes, a real bass player is missing in the song. The bass line is very, very simple, too simple compared to what John did.

My only "real" complaint, as it would pertain to a whole record. This song was a good teaser, a way for them to put a toe in to test the water, as it were.




The Golden Gate Bridge should have a long bungee cord for people who aren’t quite ready to commit suicide but want to get in a little practice.