Jump to content

Talk:'39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tuning vs Speed-Up

[edit]

I strongly suspect that the song is speeded up half a tone, as opposed to having been recorded in Ab originally.

It is certainly played in G in the version on "Live Killers"--feline1 09:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's in G on the recording, guys.

The recording is of course in A-Flat, and I do suspect it was speeded up as well. Though speeding up sometimes results in changing the timbre, it wouldn't be the case for this one (only accelerated a 6%). The song does sound better in A-Flat, it's got more dramatical subtlety than the more folksy and 'fireplace-esque' G Major. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.156.29.47 (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I also suspect it has been sped up half a tone, and not recorded with a capo. As far as I know Brian has never recorded with a capo (and if he did, it was a rare occasion). And they did sped up backing tracks sometimes, to give it a bit of a fresher sound. They also did it with Another One Bites the Dust (it's tuning is somewhere between E minor and F minor). Also they played the song in G (if the album version was indeed recorded with a capo and written in Ab it would be another rare occasion of playing a song live in a different key to the album version)

I full agree that the track was most likely recorded in the key of G, and then varispeed was used move everything up a semitone to the key of Ab. The vocals would then have been recorded afterwards. Unfortunately, I have never read any evidence that this is the case, it just seems the to make the most sense (especially since it's always been played live in the key of G).

There are a number of reasons as to why this might have been done. Possibly it was to give the song a slightly different sort of mood (given the sci-fi subject matter), or possibly it was sped up to make the backing track a little tighter. LeftHandedGuitarist (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics

[edit]

I'm pretty sure the lyrics quoted here are wrong, and I'm going to change them. I posted this on the reference desk yesterday and got a response:

'39
In the article for the song '39 by Queen, it says the lyrics include, "your mother's eyes in your eyes/cry to me...All my life/still ahead/pity me!" I've been listening to my recording of the song over and over again, and I'm pretty sure they're "from your eyes" and "For my life". Can I get a confirmation on this? Black Carrot 02:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[link to copyvio website removed], [link to copyvio website removed], and [link to copyvio website removed] agree with you. But [link to copyvio website removed] is the only one on the the first page of a google search that returned that it said "Your mother's eyes in your eyes cry to me." All of them, however, agree with you on the "for my life" part. schyler 03:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, if anyone disagrees, feel free to contact me. Black Carrot 14:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think by the line "In the land that our grand-children knew" he is implying to his dead lover that he has come back and meet their grandchildren. 75.44.28.48 (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time Dilation

[edit]

The velocity calculated here (to produce the required dilation effect) seems to be based on the speed of light being 300,000,000 m/s. Would it not make more sense to use the exact value of c (299,792,458 m/s)? In this case the desired volocity would be 299777468 m/s. (As it stands, the velocity is greater than that of the exact speed of light and may upset some of the more 'picky' readers, myself included :D ) Oatzy 20:10, 08 December 2006 (GMT)

I tend to agree. Either remove the speed reference and leave the multiplayer of 'c' only or give a precise speed. Don't see the point this way. I'm going to fix the number, and if you prefer exclude it, as it was in the prev. version. Donny 17:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Express it as a fraction of c, and wikilink that to speed of light.--feline1 17:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. it is good enough as it is now. 99% is fair to show the reader an idea about this, we don't need all of the mega numbers, but we definitely didn't need mega numbers that were wrong. And yes, noone says that the travel was "exactly" 100 years. it is probably more of a figure of speach. Donny 19:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. AND the entire concept is only "science-fiction" anyways ;-)--feline1 20:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setting

[edit]

It's either 2039-2139, or 2139-2239. the second is more relistic, but from quens pespectibe in the 70's/80's, the first might have seamed pheasible.Avianmosquito 16:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Avianmosquito[reply]

Your Mother's Eyes

[edit]

While the lyric "Your mother's eyes, from your eyes, cry to me" COULD suggest that he is met with his daughter as an old woman, isn't it a little more feasible that he's met with his granddaughter and sees the resemblance of his daughter in her? It seems a little far fetched that in this apocalyptic future where the world is dying that health care would still be good enough that people could survive to live over 100 years old.

Then again, they could have developed something totally awesome that makes you live to 150 by that time, but I'm thinking pessimistically. ~~ Not logged in Tranchera ~~ 22:01, 1 November 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Queen A Night At The Opera.png

[edit]

Image:Queen A Night At The Opera.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:You'reMyBestFriendYugoslavia.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MER-C 02:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the content was copied from [1]. MER-C 02:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did the volunteers really not know?

[edit]

OK, pure speculation time. I love this song, but one thing I don't get. In the second verse, Brian sings "... little darling we'll away, but my love this cannot be..." His plans with his "little darling" and especially his expression of disbelief in the next line imply the volunteers were not aware of the phenomenon of time dilation. That would mean either (1) the people who ran the mission didn't know about it or (2) they knew it, but didn't tell the volunteers about it. The first seems unlikely, while the second is disturbing and, frankly, unbelievable. Surely they would tell the volunteers, which doesn't mean there would be no takers: the planned Mars One mission got over four thousand volunteers even though they'd never return to Earth. I wonder which of these options Brian had in mind when he wrote it. Fool4jesus (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on '39. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Groucho Marx and 'A Cappella'

[edit]

The article claims that when the band met Groucho Marx, they "performed "'39" a cappella". The source cited is a book called Queen: The Ultimate Illustrated History of the Crown Kings of Rock, which I don't own. But in this video, Roger Taylor states that Groucho gave them a guitar, which would imply that they weren't performing a cappella. What in the book lead to the article saying that it was a cappella, and which source would be more verifiable? Mister Apple (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive rock?

[edit]

Is '39 really progressive rock? Most sources agree that it's folk or skiffle, but not prog rock in the same way Bohemian Rhapsody or The Prophets Song are prog. In the review of the album it says that '39 is "mystical prog rock" but this seems to refer more to the fact that it's about science fiction and space travel. And in the review of the song, the reviewer says that "its only obvious progressive attribute being the chorus over the opening bars". So, I'm changing it unless someone can explain it to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UndoubtedlyMe (talk • contribs) 17:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the source describes it as "prog rock", that's what we should go with. It's similar to some of the simpler songs on early Genesis albums, and nobody disputes that they were prog rock.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@султан 91.192.66.153 (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:%2739&oldid=1194133098"