| ANAGRAMER 25.01.2009 05:28 |
Out of sheer boredom, stuck on GH1 DVD last nite Struck by JD's amazing bass playing - have to say it kinda passed me by b4 - just listen to the lines in Bicyclce Race, YMBF, Save ME - the guy's an unsung genius! Any bass players have an opinion? |
| john bodega 25.01.2009 06:04 |
He's brilliant. His absence is almost deafening on the new album. |
| ok.computer 25.01.2009 07:18 |
John was/is an excellent bass player and much under-rated. Alas, no front page of Bass Player for him. Passed by again. Millionaire Waltz, Dead on Time...so many tunes that would just be empty if he hadn't been there. |
| Al TurHao 25.01.2009 07:37 |
Cool, Anagramer. Better late than never. ;) |
| Al TurHao 25.01.2009 07:53 |
Most of the polls magazines/radios/etc do, everything is biased because of the "fan factor". It's the explanation why, for instance, in the "Best Bass Player" polls you get Roger Waters and Paul Mccartney in top positions. How silly - to say it the least - that is. Don't get me wrong, Macca and Waters are pure genius as far as my opinion goes, but as composers and musicians in general terms. Not in terms of bass. (Pink Floyd's trickiest bass parts were usually recorded by David Gilmour, and Macca is a good bass player, as he is a good pianist and guitarrist and.. well, you name it). Now, back to the topic, I simply love John Deacon's work: discrete but omnipresent. I feel sad for most of the band's choice of programmed stuff in the 80's, regardind bass and also drums (most of the drums you think are drums.. well.. there are not). That musical approach you get from John Deacon, John Paul Jones, John Entwhistle, Cliff Hugo (just listen to his playing in the live recording of Supertramp's "It was the best times") is as good as bass playing should be. Some might point Flea from Red Hot Chilli Peppers. He's got excelent tecnique, but he doesn't turn me on. It's the same reason why i prefer a single bending of David Gilmour to those "28 notes per second" tappings of Joe Satriani.... Thanks for reading. Cheers. |
| Bo Alex 25.01.2009 11:35 |
John is a genius. HIs basslines, specially in the 70s, are brilliant. They are so melodic: You're my best friend, The millionaire waltz, Jealousy, Play the game and many others. |
| Sebastian 25.01.2009 14:12 |
Bo Alex wrote: John is a genius. HIs basslines, specially in the 70s, are brilliant. They are so melodic: You're my best friend, The millionaire waltz, Jealousy, Play the game and many others. Yes but many of those could've been composed by somebody else. John played (and probably still plays) well because his approach was correct, not because the lines were interesting - those are totally different matters. |
| mike hunt 26.01.2009 01:23 |
I like Mr. Deacons playing, but To be honest I don't think he was a genious bass player. I always looked at John as an underated songwriter/bass player, but still not a brilliant one. He is missed on the new album, and I disagree with the poster who said the 80's wern't good for him. I think the game, hot space, and the miracle were all solid albums for Johns playing, Though I agree, roger taylor was not a very good drummer in 80's IMO. |
| thomasquinn 32989 26.01.2009 07:37 |
Sebastian wrote:Bo Alex wrote: John is a genius. HIs basslines, specially in the 70s, are brilliant. They are so melodic: You're my best friend, The millionaire waltz, Jealousy, Play the game and many others.Yes but many of those could've been composed by somebody else. John played (and probably still plays) well because his approach was correct, not because the lines were interesting - those are totally different matters. There is no such thing as "correct" or "incorrect" in music. "There is no progress in art, any more than there is progress in making love. There are simply different ways of doing it." - (Man Ray, 1948 essay, "To Be Continued, Unnoticed".) |
| Marcos Napier 26.01.2009 09:11 |
There are 2 kinds of musicians: the musicians and these that like to show off. Vai is a brilliant guitarist, but I'd take Gilmour over him anytime, any song. Makes me remember of a pathetic guitar player called Janick Gers, of Iron Maiden. All he does is swing his guitar around his neck and make faces. Fortunately, Adrian Smith is back. Flea is a very talented bass player, but it seems that all he can do is the same stuff. It works for his band, but would it work elsewhere? In polls, people tend to quote always the same names, even being fans or not. This is why Kurt Kobain still wins something. |
| oh-ja 26.01.2009 10:52 |
Marcos Napier wrote:hopefully we will see soon - the faces reunion tour ahead ...Flea is a very talented bass player, but it seems that all he can do is the same stuff. It works for his band, but would it work elsewhere? |
| Micrówave 26.01.2009 11:28 |
So, uh, any Bass players have an opinion? |
| thomasquinn 32989 26.01.2009 14:37 |
Micrówave wrote: So, uh, any Bass players have an opinion? Ranges from bass player to bass player, as is usual in human beings. |
| joe90 26.01.2009 20:06 |
John Deacon, John Enstlewine, Jon Paul Jones, John McVie. Lets face it. You want you're kid to be a great bassist. Call them John. Even the girls. "Liar" live 74. John and bass playing at it's best. |
| mike hunt 27.01.2009 01:59 |
Marcos Napier wrote: There are 2 kinds of musicians: the musicians and these that like to show off. Vai is a brilliant guitarist, but I'd take Gilmour over him anytime, any song. Makes me remember of a pathetic guitar player called Janick Gers, of Iron Maiden. All he does is swing his guitar around his neck and make faces. Fortunately, Adrian Smith is back. Flea is a very talented bass player, but it seems that all he can do is the same stuff. It works for his band, but would it work elsewhere? In polls, people tend to quote always the same names, even being fans or not. This is why Kurt Kobain still wins something. Janick Gers, I remember him. the bad maiden years IMO. |
| mike hunt 27.01.2009 02:02 |
joe90 wrote: John Deacon, John Enstlewine, Jon Paul Jones, John McVie. Lets face it. You want you're kid to be a great bassist. Call them John. Even the girls. "Liar" live 74. John and bass playing at it's best. If deacon was truly an all time great player his name would be mentioned more often, though He's still a good one. breakthru has some nice bass lines. |
| joe90 27.01.2009 03:49 |
mike hunt wrote:joe90 wrote: John Deacon, John Enstlewine, Jon Paul Jones, John McVie. Lets face it. You want you're kid to be a great bassist. Call them John. Even the girls. "Liar" live 74. John and bass playing at it's best.If deacon was truly an all time great player his name would be mentioned more often, though He's still a good one. breakthru has some nice bass lines. Jesus. I guess Britney must be the greatest singer alive then going by that reasoning. Dont be so insecure. Is he a great? Who the fuck knows. All i know is that i enjoy listening to his basslines over most others. Therefore, he's great to me. It's not a contest. |
| thomasquinn 32989 27.01.2009 06:28 |
mike hunt wrote:joe90 wrote: John Deacon, John Enstlewine, Jon Paul Jones, John McVie. Lets face it. You want you're kid to be a great bassist. Call them John. Even the girls. "Liar" live 74. John and bass playing at it's best.If deacon was truly an all time great player his name would be mentioned more often, though He's still a good one. breakthru has some nice bass lines. You seem to be one of those people who believe that something is good when many people think it is. That's a fallacy. Good or bad art depends on inherent characteristics of the work of art, the public's opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it. |
| kosimodo 27.01.2009 14:38 |
As Joe90 says: Is he a great? Who the fuck knows. All i know is that i enjoy listening to his basslines over most others. Therefore, he's great to me. Good point. For me one of the few where i follow a bassline the whole song! A joy 2 listen 2! Same as Freddie.. probably there are better singers out there, but for me He is god! |
| Legy 27.01.2009 17:32 |
I'm a bassist and I don't think JD was the best bassist around. He's solid, that's for sure. But he is no John Entwistle or John Paul Jones. I saw The Who play live back in a few years ago, before The Ox passed away. He put on a five minute bass solo which to be honest is the best bass solo I've ever heard in my life. It was quite a humbling experience. I thought I was good, but my God, Entwistle was THE best bassist I've ever scene live. Although Deacon wasn't the best bassist of his time, his song writing speaks for itself. A very solid bassist with superb writing abilities. |
| Legy 27.01.2009 17:32 |
Double post. |
| john bodega 27.01.2009 22:40 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Good or bad art depends on inherent characteristics of the work of art, the public's opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it. Ah, but then who decides what characteristics are good and bad? Doesn't that come close to a subjective opinion, even if it is well-informed? (Don't mind me, this is just something that's been on my mind since the last time QZ got into an argument with Matias). |
| liam 27.01.2009 23:03 |
I play bass and John Deacon is a fantastic bass player who has inspired my style of playing more than any other. He knew when to show off and when to stay in the background, when to play a melodic line or stick to the root notes. If you listen carefully to the music you can here John's subtle brilliance, from his fast runs to muted notes to his jumping up and down an octave. He was a much better all round player than Mccartney, whose in your face bass lines in almost every song, almost flood the rest of the instruments. John's playing on the other hand never flooded the rest of the instruments, even on the bass heavy songs. So yes in my opinion he was an amazing player. |
| mike hunt 28.01.2009 03:47 |
ThomasQuinn wrote:mike hunt wrote:You seem to be one of those people who believe that something is good when many people think it is. That's a fallacy. Good or bad art depends on inherent characteristics of the work of art, the public's opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it.joe90 wrote: John Deacon, John Enstlewine, Jon Paul Jones, John McVie. Lets face it. You want you're kid to be a great bassist. Call them John. Even the girls. "Liar" live 74. John and bass playing at it's best.If deacon was truly an all time great player his name would be mentioned more often, though He's still a good one. breakthru has some nice bass lines. your incorrect on that. Check my profile, most of my favorite musicians are not the most known by the public. Dr. John, randy newman, poor randy gets no respect. Even Queen, I'll say queen are in the top 5 or 10 of the greatest bands ever. Most people in my area (NY) would disagree. Your opinion is that Deacon is a genious bass play, I disagree, IMO, he's a very good one. not a genious. How does that make me insecure? |
| thomasquinn 32989 28.01.2009 06:43 |
Zebonka12 wrote:ThomasQuinn wrote: Good or bad art depends on inherent characteristics of the work of art, the public's opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it.Ah, but then who decides what characteristics are good and bad? Doesn't that come close to a subjective opinion, even if it is well-informed? (Don't mind me, this is just something that's been on my mind since the last time QZ got into an argument with Matias). To get to the bottom of this, we'd have to launch into a very long discussion of continental aesthetics. I personally don't feel like doing that right now, so I'll try to summarize my views on the philosophical side of this question: A work of art is a work of art regardless of the context wherein it is found (Heidegger). Therefore, what makes it art is to be found in the artwork itself. Many attempts at a formalist definition of art (i.e. one where inherent characteristics are taken to define an artwork AND where these characteristics are defined) have been attempted, and all failed (see Hanslick for a good example of this), because they were either too inclusive or too exclusive. The fact that the public's opinion on what is and is not art is often wrong has been shown throughout history by the numerous artists who did not gain recognition until late in their careers or after their deaths, as well as by Dadaism and parts of the Expressionist movement. This I personally explain by saying "people as a whole like art they understand, and they only understand [logical necessity] what they already know". Therefore, people do not want to be given a new perspective on art appreciation and thus will deny the art-ness of modern art. An absolute solution to the problem is not to be found, as no person or group of persons is capable of infallible judgement over the work of art. The pragmatic solution offered is to give every individual the right to define anything as being either art or non-art, but this is, as I said, merely pragmatism. Objectivity is a fully theoretical construction, as it is technically impossible to experience anything through anything else than our own senses, which makes any experience subjective. Thus, the quality (or art-ness) of a work of art cannot be defined, but it is, with Heidegger's simple statement I opened with, evident that whatever makes something art is present in the art-work. |
| thomasquinn 32989 28.01.2009 06:46 |
mike hunt wrote:ThomasQuinn wrote:your incorrect on that. Check my profile, most of my favorite musicians are not the most known by the public. Dr. John, randy newman, poor randy gets no respect. Even Queen, I'll say queen are in the top 5 or 10 of the greatest bands ever. Most people in my area (NY) would disagree. Your opinion is that Deacon is a genious bass play, I disagree, IMO, he's a very good one. not a genious. How does that make me insecure?mike hunt wrote:You seem to be one of those people who believe that something is good when many people think it is. That's a fallacy. Good or bad art depends on inherent characteristics of the work of art, the public's opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it.joe90 wrote: John Deacon, John Enstlewine, Jon Paul Jones, John McVie. Lets face it. You want you're kid to be a great bassist. Call them John. Even the girls. "Liar" live 74. John and bass playing at it's best.If deacon was truly an all time great player his name would be mentioned more often, though He's still a good one. breakthru has some nice bass lines. I do not consider John Deacon "a genius bass player". I consider him to be thoroughly competent if slightly dull. I do not frankly care too much what your taste in music is, as that is something for you to decide yourself and doesn't involve me (incidentally, Dr. John and Randy Newman are still extremely famous musicians). I respond merely to what you said, which was "If deacon was truly an all time great player his name would be mentioned more often". That presupposes that greatness is measured by public appreciation, which was what I responded to. |
| Al TurHao 28.01.2009 09:39 |
I've been reading "genius" here quite often in this thread. IMHO, if there was a genius in Queen, it was Freddie Mercury, in terms of songwriting. |
| Raf 28.01.2009 10:38 |
Al TurHao wrote: I've been reading "genius" here quite often in this thread. IMHO, if there was a genius in Queen, it was Freddie Mercury, in terms of songwriting. And Brian May wasn't one, in terms of composing and arranging songs...? |
| thomasquinn 32989 28.01.2009 10:39 |
Like most people, he is confusing performance and compositional skills. |
| Adam Baboolal 28.01.2009 12:46 |
link nuff said. Good ol' deacy. Adam. |
| Amazon 28.01.2009 13:16 |
Sebastian wrote:Bo Alex wrote: John is a genius. HIs basslines, specially in the 70s, are brilliant. They are so melodic: You're my best friend, The millionaire waltz, Jealousy, Play the game and many others.Yes but many of those could've been composed by somebody else. John played (and probably still plays) well because his approach was correct, not because the lines were interesting - those are totally different matters. I don't agree with this. Even if the basslines were composed by somebody else, it would still take enormous talent to play them. It's like with someone like Roger Daltrey; he mightn't write his own lyrics, but that IMO he is able to communicate these lyrics so well arguably makes him a brilliant singer. So with John, he would IMO have to be a brilliant bass player to be able to play these basslines, irrespective of whether he composed them, if one of course regarded the basslines as brilliant. |
| Sebastian 28.01.2009 17:12 |
Amazon wrote:Sebastian wrote:I don't agree with this. Even if the basslines were composed by somebody else, it would still take enormous talent to play them. It's like with someone like Roger Daltrey; he mightn't write his own lyrics, but that IMO he is able to communicate these lyrics so well arguably makes him a brilliant singer. So with John, he would IMO have to be a brilliant bass player to be able to play these basslines, irrespective of whether he composed them, if one of course regarded the basslines as brilliant.Bo Alex wrote: John is a genius. HIs basslines, specially in the 70s, are brilliant. They are so melodic: You're my best friend, The millionaire waltz, Jealousy, Play the game and many others.Yes but many of those could've been composed by somebody else. John played (and probably still plays) well because his approach was correct, not because the lines were interesting - those are totally different matters. I agree, but my point is: Daltrey's an amazing singer because of his voice, his delivery, his strength, etc... not because the melody of 'Behind Blue Eyes' (which isn't his, btw) is beautiful. Same here: Deacon's a great bass player, not because 'Champions' (or any other song for that matter) has a nice bass-line, but because he plays that (and others) with great performance, rhythm, precision, dynamics, etc. |
| Holly2003 28.01.2009 17:24 |
I have to say, watching videos on YouTube of people covering John's base lines to songs like The Fairy Feller's Master Stroke and The Millionaire Waltz REALLY makes me appreciate his playing a lot more. Great stuff. |
| ok.computer 28.01.2009 18:25 |
Adam Thanks for posting that. I never really listened to it before in isolation. |
| mike hunt 29.01.2009 02:05 |
ThomasQuinn wrote:mike hunt wrote:I do not consider John Deacon "a genius bass player". I consider him to be thoroughly competent if slightly dull. I do not frankly care too much what your taste in music is, as that is something for you to decide yourself and doesn't involve me (incidentally, Dr. John and Randy Newman are still extremely famous musicians). I respond merely to what you said, which was "If deacon was truly an all time great player his name would be mentioned more often". That presupposes that greatness is measured by public appreciation, which was what I responded to.ThomasQuinn wrote:your incorrect on that. Check my profile, most of my favorite musicians are not the most known by the public. Dr. John, randy newman, poor randy gets no respect. Even Queen, I'll say queen are in the top 5 or 10 of the greatest bands ever. Most people in my area (NY) would disagree. Your opinion is that Deacon is a genious bass play, I disagree, IMO, he's a very good one. not a genious. How does that make me insecure?mike hunt wrote:You seem to be one of those people who believe that something is good when many people think it is. That's a fallacy. Good or bad art depends on inherent characteristics of the work of art, the public's opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it.joe90 wrote: John Deacon, John Enstlewine, Jon Paul Jones, John McVie. Lets face it. You want you're kid to be a great bassist. Call them John. Even the girls. "Liar" live 74. John and bass playing at it's best.If deacon was truly an all time great player his name would be mentioned more often, though He's still a good one. breakthru has some nice bass lines. yea right, Dr. John is so famous that I have to explain who he is to most people when I mention him, also, I'm not talking about public appreciation as much as what his peer musicians think. Think about all the huge queen fans, from pop to metal musicians who have come out and said freddie this and freddie that, brian may's uniqe guitar sound. Who ever mentions John or Roger. Entwistle was begged to say something about John, cos no one else mentioned the poor guy, and how about roger?...the only one who praises him is brian may, and that other story about him spending the night in Jail Drunk. Their both respected, but when you throw around the word "genius" it becomes a whole different game. |
| Al TurHao 29.01.2009 06:38 |
Roger Taylor is a unique character, cool, funny, the typical rock star. He is an efficient drummer, a very good musician. He even has that distinctive beat. But, no argument possible: John Deacon is WAY better bassist than Roger Taylor a drummer. |
| Bo Alex 29.01.2009 13:11 |
Maybe we use the word "genius" because we aprecciate him very much. maybe the correct thing to say is great bass-playeer, who composed some great songs and maybe did some nice arrangements. By the way, I always thought that John has composed almost all the bass lines, even if the song hasn't composed by him. That's because I called him genius. |
| Sebastian 29.01.2009 15:56 |
More often than not, the creator of the song composed all parts for all instruments. |
| mike hunt 30.01.2009 15:31 |
Al TurHao wrote: Roger Taylor is a unique character, cool, funny, the typical rock star. He is an efficient drummer, a very good musician. He even has that distinctive beat. But, no argument possible: John Deacon is WAY better bassist than Roger Taylor a drummer. nice post, and I agree. Roger and John are good musicians. The typical rock star to me is boring, guys like tommy lee, roger talyor don't impress me. Roger vs john?...I'm not sure, the live shows roger was better. |
| Negative Creep 30.01.2009 15:37 |
Sebastian wrote: More often than not, the creator of the song composed all parts for all instruments. Highly unlikely. Scratch that - completely unfounded and absolute tosh. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 30.01.2009 20:23 |
Negative Creep wrote:Sebastian wrote: More often than not, the creator of the song composed all parts for all instruments.Highly unlikely. Scratch that - completely unfounded and absolute tosh. agreed |
| Sebastian 30.01.2009 21:45 |
It's not unfounded. Just because a person's not a bassist doesn't mean they can't write for bass. Same with other instruments. Or do you think Mozart could sing all the bass, tenor, alto and soprano arias of his operas? Do you think John Deacon could sing Best Friend that well? Do you think Lloyd Webber could hit the high notes of Phantom of the Opera? |
| john bodega 31.01.2009 01:27 |
It's very true of the examples you picked, but hardly applicable to loads of other musicians and groups. Given the number of artists who write as a team rather than pitching completed songs to each other, I don't think it works as a 'rule', but as you say it's quite appropriate for classical composers and, of course, Queen themselves. There's plenty of evidence of parts being written in advance for the other members (as well as bits where the players were given free reign to do what they liked, such as Brian's solo in Bohemian Rhapsody). |
| thomasquinn 32989 31.01.2009 07:13 |
I still have to side with Sebastian here. It is more common for the composer to also do the arranging than it is for a separate composer and arranger to work on songs, especially in the rock and pop worlds (jazz and classical music are different matters, for highly complicated reasons of their own). |
| Sebastian 31.01.2009 08:01 |
Zebonka12 wrote: It's very true of the examples you picked, but hardly applicable to loads of other musicians and groups. Given the number of artists who write as a team rather than pitching completed songs to each other, I don't think it works as a 'rule', but as you say it's quite appropriate for classical composers and, of course, Queen themselves. There's plenty of evidence of parts being written in advance for the other members (as well as bits where the players were given free reign to do what they liked, such as Brian's solo in Bohemian Rhapsody). Yes, of course it's not a 'rule', but the ultimate fact is: very very very very often, the person who recorded the part did not compose it (and very very very very often, they did). For instance, whoever played violin on Yesterday didn't invent the line, George Martin did; whoever sings on 'Cats' didn't compose the melodies, Andrew Lloyd-Webber did. All the Queen members were/are professional enough to be able to write for other instruments, even if they can't play them themselves. That includes John Deacon (not a singer) writing beautiful melodies and lyrics for vocals (an instrument he's not proficient on). Of course Brian could (and did) write for drums, as well as Roger for keyboards, Freddie for bass, and so on. Known cases where 'common sense' fails are usual too: Brian had some input on It's a Hard Life; not on guitars though, but on lyrics. Freddie's main contribution to A Kind of Magic wasn't on keyboards or vocals, but on the bass motif (which John played but didn't compose). Beatles were also known for arranging themselves all the band parts, many times: McCartney, especially in the early days, played only bass, but he invented the guitar parts for John & George, the drum part for Ringo, and the harmonies (if any). On Ticket to Ride, Paul didn't invent the bass-line, but the drum part. Lennon wrote all of Day Tripper, even if neither the solo nor the lead vocal are done (recorded) by him. The bottomlines are: Mercury could write for guitar, and did so, many times, even not being a guitarist himself. Mercury could write for bass, and did so, many times, even not being a bassist himself. Mercury could write for drums, and did so, many times, even not being a drummer himself. May could write for bass, and did so, many times, even not being the one who recorded the lines. May could write for drums, and did so, many times, even not being a drummer himself. Taylor could write for guitar, and did so, many times, even if May recorded them in the end. Taylor could write for bass, and did so, many times, even if Deacon recorded them in the end. Taylor could write for keyboards, and did so, many times, even not being a keyboardist himself. Deacon could write for vocals, and did so, many times, even not being a singer himself. Deacon could write for guitars, and did so, many times, even if May recorded them in the end. Deacon could write for drums, and did so, many times, even not being a drummer himself. Deacon could write for piano, and did so, many times, even if Mercury recorded them in the end. Mercury could sing beautifully, melodies he hadn't composed (e.g. Show Must Go On) Deacon could play beautifully, bass-lines he hadn't composed (e.g. Under Pressure) May could play beautifully, guitar parts (rhythm, solo, choir) he hadn't composed (e.g. Best Friend) Taylor could play beautifully, drum parts he hadn't composed (e.g. Sweet Lady) And neither of the above points makes Mercury less of a singer, Deacon less of a bassist, May less of a guitarist or Taylor less of a drummer. But the point remains the same: More often than not (in Queen, that is), the creator of the song composed all parts for all instruments. |
| Bo Alex 31.01.2009 11:44 |
First of all, escuse me for my poor use of English. I always have the image in my mind that the composer came with a song, for example Freddie, and play it to the others guy in the piano (with the melody and the lyrics), asked to the others what they think about it and the others create the part for their instruments. Of course there are cases that this doesn't happen and the composer also creates the part for another instrument which is not his speciality (John in Misfire or Back Chat -guitar-, Brian in Save me -piano- or Sail away sweet sister, Freddie in CLTCL -rhythm guitar- and so on). I don't imagine the creation of rock music like the classical music like Mozart, who composed for many instruments and write the partitures (or tabs, I don't know how to name it in English). I think of this about the prime idea belongs to the composer, I mean the main melody and the lyrics (which could be changed a little in the process). By the way, Under pressure bass line or the famous bass riff, isn't John's? |
| Sebastian 31.01.2009 13:32 |
Mercury could also play the bass line on the piano, or sing the guitar bits, or conduct Taylor on the drums (like One Vision making of, although that's not his song). Deacon, even not being a singer, could 'sing' the melody to Mercury, or play it on bass, guitar or piano. During synth era anybody could programme the parts and they could be replaced later by the respective player. So, just because Brian plays a guitar choir, for instance, it doesn't mean he wrote it, same for Mercury and multi-tracked backing vocals, or Taylor with drums, or Deacon with bass. Indeed, for 'Back to the Light' May programmed drums on synthesisers, and then Cozy Powell replaced (many of) them using an actual acoustic set, but the part had been composed by Brian (who's not a drummer). And so on... keep in mind, also, that: - Very often the same riff, motif or line is done on different instruments (e.g. Two Legs tritone leap, Teo Torriatte bass during the second verse is similar to what guitars do on the third, Tie Your Mother Down bass doubles rhythm guitar, Bo Rhap verse has bass doubling left-hand piano). - Creating parts for vocals isn't too different to creating parts for other instruments. So, if Deacon could write for vocals, I don't know why it's so hard to understand that May could write for drums or Mercury for guitar, etc. PS: Deacon credited the bass-line to Bowie, at least twice. |
| victor fleitas 31.01.2009 15:04 |
Deacon could play beautifully, bass-lines he hadn't composed (e.g. Under Pressure) Deacon does have writted the bass-lines on under pressure, it says so on the comments of GVH2... he's a genious! |
| Sebastian 31.01.2009 19:18 |
Let's compare: GVHII: Taylor & May, twenty years after the song's recorded, credit the bass-riff to John. Music Life magazine: John Deacon, the man who recorded the bass line, credits it to Bowie (one year after the song was laid down) Which evidence is more trustworthy? |
| redspecialusa 31.01.2009 19:39 |
Sebastian wrote: It's not unfounded. Just because a person's not a bassist doesn't mean they can't write for bass. Same with other instruments. Or do you think Mozart could sing all the bass, tenor, alto and soprano arias of his operas? Do you think John Deacon could sing Best Friend that well? Do you think Lloyd Webber could hit the high notes of Phantom of the Opera? Sebastian and Zebonka both make good points. Speaking of Classical Composers, I'd pay good money to see Handel try and sing half the music he's written. That sonofabitch didn't like singers, I'M TELLING YOU. His gigantic work 'Messiah?' You want to talk about something that's difficulty isn't described well by "hard" or "challenging." Especially for being choir arrangements. The choir conductor at my college had to bribe people to do a solo on a Handel piece. No-one wanted it. |
| redspecialusa 31.01.2009 19:42 |
To answer the original question though...I think John Deacon is a brilliant musician, and a very lyrical, yet soulful bassist. Better than Macca, John Paul Jones, and a few others. He had an innate way of blending with everything seamlessly, but still playing stuff that is utter genius. As much as I love John's bass playing, and his musicianship, I think Thunderfingers is the greatest Rock bassist...Thunderfingers was to rock as James Jamerson was to Pop & Motown. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 01.02.2009 01:18 |
A guy like Rod Stewart can strum an acoustic guitar, and that's about all for his musicality, yet he wrote a lot of songs. Phil Collins couldn't play horns, yet when he had the horn section for his second solo album on the song "I cannot believe it's true", he indicated that he wanted the horns played as "bah-bah-bahbahbah-bah-bahbah." So Sebastian has a fair point about the difference between writing and playing. However, and this is a big however, there is no way on God's earth that anybody in any band would ever play only what they were told by other band members. They are usually in a band to make a mark as a musician, not to be a studio guy playing what they are told. First off, if it was Bowie who created the famous intro bass line for UP, do you really think that he said, "now John, after that, I want you to play a descending line lower on the fretboard that's a variation of the main riff, and when you get to the "it's the terror" part then you should play an eighth note G alternating between the root on the E string and the 5th fret on the D string." No chance. So he created the melody, sure, but the rest of that song is John Deacon. Listen to Bowie, who I admire musically, and he's a dabbler on every instrument he plays. He's not winning any guitar or sax polls, so I highly doubt that he could walk John Deacon through Under Pressure on the bass. |
| Holly2003 01.02.2009 05:08 |
Sebastian wrote: More often than not, the creator of the song composed all parts for all instruments. This isn't plausible for reasons stated above. Plus it contradicts two main statements bandmembers have made about the creative process, namely: 1. That individual members would bring a song to recording sessions and the input of other members would often change it entirely. 2. Brian May's often-quoted line that he creates guitar solos as self-contained compositions. |
| Rick 01.02.2009 05:17 |
Sebastian wrote: Let's compare: GVHII: Taylor & May, twenty years after the song's recorded, credit the bass-riff to John. Music Life magazine: John Deacon, the man who recorded the bass line, credits it to Bowie (one year after the song was laid down) Which evidence is more trustworthy?Let's look at another situation: "The co-composition credit on FRIENDS WILL BE FRIENDS and on PAIN IS SO CLOSE TO PLEASURE was merely because John Deacon insisted that Freddie's contribution be recognised and acknowledged. John's honesty and integrity would not have allowed him to do otherwise." (Peter Freestone) In other words: John contributed more than Freddie one these two songs, but he insisted that Freddie's name should be mentioned in the credits as well. At least this is what I can make out of it. The same could go for the bass line of Under Pressure. Maybe John started it off and Bowie added some ideas here and there. John's kindness and/or shyness might be the crucial ingredient in this matter, by saying Bowie wrote the whole thing. Just a simple theory. |
| Sebastian 01.02.2009 07:37 |
> However, and this is a big however, there is no way on God's earth that anybody in any band would ever play only what they were told by other band members. Of course every time you play or sing something you're already adding your own phrasing, etc. For instance, every piano sonata changes a bit when played by different performers. But it doesn't mean that there's a Moonlight Sonata by Beethoven & Lang, another by Beethoven & Barenboim, etc. From the very moment Mercury took over a vocal line written by somebody else, he'd adapt his phrasing, his technique, etc, to it, but it doesn't mean he co-wrote the melody. Same for other instruments. Now, I'm not saying that all of the solos were composed by the creator of the song, or all bass lines, but the point remains: More often than not, the creator of the song wrote all parts for all instruments and vocals. > They are usually in a band to make a mark as a musician, not to be a studio guy playing what they are told. But that's not quite the case in Queen. Each had his own way in his own songs, but on the others', they were just to make the best of it. Sometimes as co-arrangers, yes, but most of the time, as players or singers. Of course it depends on the actual song... > First off, if it was Bowie who created the famous intro bass line for UP, do you really think that he said, "now John, after that, I want you to play a descending line lower on the fretboard that's a variation of the main riff, and when you get to the "it's the terror" part then you should play an eighth note G alternating between the root on the E string and the 5th fret on the D string." To write a bass-line doesn't mean to tell the exact 'coordinates'. He could write the melody and then Deacy would decide if he played a G note on the 4th string or the 3rd or the 5th, etc. Same for vocals: Deacy didn't need to indicate Freddie which muscles of his throat had to work to produce the 'oh you make me live' line, but that doesn't mean he didn't write it. > Listen to Bowie, who I admire musically, and he's a dabbler on every instrument he plays. He's not winning any guitar or sax polls, so I highly doubt that he could walk John Deacon through Under Pressure on the bass. Again, you don't need to be an expert on the instrument in order to write good lines for it. And viceversa: thousands of people can play Bach's Lute Suite in E minor, but how many can write one of those? > 1. That individual members would bring a song to recording sessions and the input of other members would often change it entirely. Can you post an exact quote? Many of those statements tend to be misunderstood or changed when reported. There are also several statements that the creator of the song would bring all of it mapped out, and he'd be the one who decided how it would go. Now, that includes either 'you play this and you play that' or 'you write a line and play it and you write another one and play it', etc. It also depends on the era. > Brian May's often-quoted line that he creates guitar solos as self-contained compositions. He's also often quoted as saying the creator of the song had the solos mapped out, and that he sometimes was asked to write a solo. > "The co-composition credit on FRIENDS WILL BE FRIENDS and on PAIN IS SO CLOSE TO PLEASURE was merely because John Deacon insisted that Freddie's contribution be recognised and acknowledged. John's honesty and integrity would not have allowed him to do otherwise." (Peter Freestone) Again, that's a statement made many years after the fact, by a person who could've been there or not. About Friends Will Be Friends, May's comments suggest Mercury's dominance. Now, the point is that neither composed it 100%. > In other words: John contributed more than Freddie one these two songs, but he insisted that Freddie's name should be mentioned in the credits as well. At least this is what I can make out of it. Yes, but he didn't say 'Freddie wrote it'. > The same could go for the bass line of Under Pressure. Maybe John started it off and Bowie added some ideas here and there. John's kindness and/or shyness might be the crucial ingredient in this matter, by saying Bowie wrote the whole thing. In fact, Deacon said that it'd taken him some time to learn it, which isn't quite surprising keeping in mind how perfectionist David is (or was, at least). > Just a simple theory. There's another theory: even though John's admitted that he didn't write the bass line (although he played it marvellously), there are some fans who simply can't accept that fact. They can believe Deacon was lying, they can believe Bowie couldn't do it... but don't consider the option that he was 'merely' a performer (and a bloody good one) there, not a co-writer. |
| Holly2003 01.02.2009 08:02 |
That individual members would bring a song to recording sessions and the input of other members would often change it entirely. Can you post an exact quote? Many of those statements tend to be misunderstood or changed when reported. There are also several statements that the creator of the song would bring all of it mapped out, and he'd be the one who decided how it would go. Now, that includes either 'you play this and you play that' or 'you write a line and play it and you write another one and play it', etc. Sorry no. I'm long past the days when I collect quotes, clippings etc. However, if I've read this then I'm sure more ardent fans will be able to provide the source. ... Brian May's often-quoted line that he creates guitar solos as self-contained compositions. He's also often quoted as saying the creator of the song had the solos mapped out, and that he sometimes was asked to write a solo. Can you provide a source ;) Seriously, I don't see that as a seriously probability. Neither Roger or Fred had enough talent on guitar to tell brian how to compose a solo. Of course it's entirely possible that Fred played something on piano as a guide. But that hardly supports your original claim that "more often that not...etc). |
| Sebastian 01.02.2009 08:20 |
Holly2003 wrote: Neither Roger or Fred had enough talent on guitar to tell brian how to compose a solo. Once again: you don't need to be a virtuoso guitarist in order to write guitar pieces. You don't need to be a singer to compose vocal melodies. You don't need to be a consummate flutist to compose a concerto for flute and orchestra. You don't need to be an outstanding comic actor in order to write a marvellous comedy. You don't need to be a professional actor in order to be a director. You don't need to be a model in order to design clothing. You don't need to be an extraordinary (former) footballer in order to be a good manager. Mercury, not being a guitarist himself, could write for guitar, and did so, many times. Taylor, not being as good on guitar as May, could write for guitar, even if May recorded the parts. Deacon, not being as good on guitar as May, could write for guitar, even if May recorded the parts. It's the same as Roger or Brian writing a vocal melody that Freddie could sing better, but they were still the writers. Same for May composing the drum part of Sweet Lady (something he wouldn't be able to play), or Deacon writing vocal melodies that he wouldn't be able to sing well, etc. |
| Holly2003 01.02.2009 08:36 |
Sebastian wrote:
Holly2003 wrote: Neither Roger or Fred had enough talent on guitar to tell brian how to compose a solo.Once again: you don't need to be a virtuoso guitarist in order to write guitar pieces. You don't need to be a singer to compose vocal melodies. You don't need to be a consummate flutist to compose a concerto for flute and orchestra. You don't need to be an outstanding comic actor in order to write a marvellous comedy. You don't need to be a professional actor in order to be a director. You don't need to be a model in order to design clothing. You don't need to be an extraordinary (former) footballer in order to be a good manager. Mercury, not being a guitarist himself, could write for guitar, and did so, many times. Taylor, not being as good on guitar as May, could write for guitar, even if May recorded the parts. Deacon, not being as good on guitar as May, could write for guitar, even if May recorded the parts. It's the same as Roger or Brian writing a vocal melody that Freddie could sing better, but they were still the writers. Same for May composing the drum part of Sweet Lady (something he wouldn't be able to play), or Deacon writing vocal melodies that he wouldn't be able to sing well, etc. You do, however, need a certain level of expertise. Was Roger, for example, good enough on guitar to show Brian what to do on guitar? He could hardly show him how to do it on drums! And he wasn't a pianist as such. As I've said, it's certainly possible that Fred wrote guitar pieces on piano, but becasue he could do it doesn't mean he did do it "more often than not". Take for example, Don't Stop Me Now. Do you really believe Fred wrote the guitar solo for that? Or is it far more likely he said to Brian "insert a hot, fast solo here Brian". To use an anlogy, when writing a script I assume it would be a lot more common for a writer to say "Insert sad orchestral music here" rather than "insert orchestral score here, which must be along the following lines A, B-, D" etc) |
| Sebastian 01.02.2009 09:01 |
> You do, however, need a certain level of expertise. Wrong: John Deacon wasn't an expert on vocals, but he composed many vocal melodies, some of which are very beautiful and well-constructed. Joaquin Rodrigo didn't play guitar (and was blind btw), yet he composed Concierto de Aranjuez. He didn't play cello (though he did play violin), harp or flute either, but composed concertos for all of them. He didn't sing either, yet he wrote choral pieces. > Was Roger, for example, good enough on guitar to show Brian what to do on guitar? As a matter of fact, Roger was/is quite good on guitar. Moreover, was Deacon good enough to sing Best Friend? No. Was he good enough to compose it? Yes. Is Bowie good enough to play UP bassline? Probably not. Is Bowie good enough to compose it? Yes. > He could hardly show him how to do it on drums! And he wasn't a pianist as such. Yet he could write parts for piano. Deacon wasn't a singer as such, yet he wrote for vocals. > As I've said, it's certainly possible that Fred wrote guitar pieces on piano, but becasue he could do it doesn't mean he did do it He could write them on vocals too, like Bijou. > Take for example, Don't Stop Me Now. Do you really believe Fred wrote the guitar solo for that? Indeed. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't (to be fair, there are certain similarities between that solo and Bo Rhap's). But often the solo has a melody not dissimilar to the sort of melody one writes for vocals, piano or wind instruments. Same for Bicycle Race (scales), etc. The fact he couldn't play it doesn't mean he didn't write it. Same for Deacon and vocals, once again. As a matter of fact, May wrote parts of clarinet (which he played on guitar), Mercury wrote parts for woodwind and brass (which he and Roger did onomatopoeically), Kerry Livgren wrote for violin, cello and viola (not being a bow player himself), and then again, John Deacon wrote for vocals, not being a singer. > Or is it far more likely he said to Brian "insert a hot, fast solo here Brian". That solo isn't *that* fast. Again, writing for guitar isn't that different to writing for other melodic instruments. Loads of guitar pieces were/are written by people who weren't/aren't proficient on guitar, just like loads of scripts for comedy are written by people who aren't necessarily good telling jokes, just like loads of vocal melodies and pieces are written by people who don't sing very well, etc. Some pieces can be hard to play but not necessarily hard to compose, and viceversa. A scalar fragment (e.g. I'm in Love With My Car, bits of Breakthru) can easily be written by a person who can't play it. Could Mozart sing all the bass, tenor, alto and soprano arias he wrote for his operas? > To use an anlogy, when writing a script I assume it would be a lot more common for a writer to say "Insert sad orchestral music here" rather than "insert orchestral score here, which must be along the following lines A, B-, D" etc) Yes, but that's a different case. The actual analogy would be: when writing a script for a film, you write the lines and describe the scenes, and then the actors say them and perform them. Again: Brian May could write for drums, even not being a drummer himself, and did so, many times. Likewise, Mercury could write for guitars, Taylor for piano, Deacon for vocals, etc. |
| Holly2003 01.02.2009 09:23 |
Seb, I don;t think your analogies quite stand up to scrutiny. I could sing a song I had composed but it wouldn;'t be very good. I could ask a real singer to sing it and it would be an improvement. But I couldn't compose intricate guitar solos for a professional guitarist to play. Vocals and instruments are different in that respect -- a certain amount of expertise is required. Roger is not a good guitarist. Where in the world did you get that idea from? Here's an interview from Guitar Player magazine which shows the collaborative process. It demonstrates that although sometimes the whole song might be mapped out in advance by one member, the others would often change things around: http://www.guitarplayer.com/article/queens-brian-may/jan-08/32483 All four of you wrote songs. How complete would the songs be when a writer would bring them in? With all of us we would have the idea pretty much developed. John didn’t sing, so generally he would have to talk Freddie through it, but he would have very clear ideas on what he wanted. For instance, when John brought in “You’re My Best Friend,” it was pretty well mapped out—he even played the keyboard on that tune. Would he give you direction on your guitar parts? Oh yeah [laughs]. He would try. We would all try, but generally there would be a process of discussion. It was a good, healthy situation where we’d work together to find the best parts. When Freddie brought in “We Are the Champions,” how long was it before you guys had the arrangement that we hear on the record? Well, arrangement is two things: It’s what happens next, and it’s what’s happening in parallel—what the texture is at any one point. As far as what happens next, I think Freddie had that very early on. With his piano part, the song is mapped. Normally he would put down the piano part with Roger and John live and when it was good enough, after three or four takes, that would be what we used. And that’s pretty much what happened with “Champions.” At this point I’m playing around and working out what I’m going to do. I get the chance plan it in my head while I’m listening to them do the backing tracks. I’m pretty sure that I put my guitar parts down immediately after. I do have some distinct memories of this one because the verse and the chorus are very different. The chorus is very big and heavy whereas the verse is very quiet. I remember listening to it in the car the day it was to be mixed and thinking that my guitar wasn’t good enough. I told them to give me one more go, and I planned that little piece in stereo that happens in verse two which I really like. It’s that sort of bell effect between two guitars. So I know I did some extra work on that one in the light of having lived with it for a couple of weeks. What are some of your favorite Brian May moments after all these years? I like the “Killer Queen” solo—I feel very proud of that. That was a dream fulfilled, because I always wanted to do something that could stand up as a three-voice solo. I still enjoy listening to that one. There’s a certain amount of pre-planned playing but it contains a certain amount of creativity as well. So I like the sound of it and I like the track all the way through. As a pop record, to me it’s almost perfect. There’s so much space in it and because of the space everything sounds big and clear and beautiful. A lot of that is due to Freddie’s big vision to bring it together. |
| thomasquinn 32989 01.02.2009 11:18 |
Holly2003 wrote: Seb, I don;t think your analogies quite stand up to scrutiny. I could sing a song I had composed but it wouldn;'t be very good. I could ask a real singer to sing it and it would be an improvement. But I couldn't compose intricate guitar solos for a professional guitarist to play. Vocals and instruments are different in that respect -- a certain amount of expertise is required. Roger is not a good guitarist. Where in the world did you get that idea from? Yes, you could, if you were familiar enough with music theory and the *basics* of guitar. If you know that a guitar has six strings, tuned mostly to perfect fourths (EADG and BD) and one major third (GB), and each fret raises the pitch by a half-step, you just need to ask your guitarist how far his reach in number of frets is on different sections of the neck to compose a solo. By far the largest input of the performer is in dynamics, speed, phrasing and the likes. Guitarists will often find a fingering themselves for a particular score written in standard notation. |
| Negative Creep 01.02.2009 13:07 |
A Whole lot of words to try and "prove" your opinion. You seem to forget that they were actually a band who usually functioned and worked as a band. The idea that anyone other than Roger ever "composed" anything he played is pretty laughable... suggesting things also isn't the same as composing.. I doubt there are any home demos where there are even drums present. And if any of them were wanting to dictate how another part was played, they played it them fucking selves. I'm pretty sure Brian even once mentioned on his soapbox that he was usually happy with what John put down... pretty much confirming that he didn't write the basslines for his own songs, let alone the drums (because of course..... you write drum lines don't you!) |
| Sebastian 01.02.2009 14:21 |
> Yes, you could, if you were familiar enough with music theory and the *basics* of guitar. And even if you weren''t. I don't think Brian's a clarinetist, yet he wrote a marvellous line for clarinet, which was then played by himself on guitar, but it can easily be made by a clarinet and is more natural on that instrument. Indeed, writing for vocals and for instruments is NOT that different. > you just need to ask your guitarist how far his reach in number of frets is on different sections of the neck to compose a solo. Not even that: you can sing it, write it (notation) or play it on another instrument. > A Whole lot of words to try and "prove" your opinion. It's not an opinion, but a fact. > You seem to forget that they were actually a band who usually functioned and worked as a band. As they've always said, the writer of the song was its owner, and they all did things his own way. So, when it came to making decisions (e.g. album title, where to tour, etc) they were a democracy, but when it came to writing and arranging, the creator was the boss, the others were there to perform (and *sometimes* arrange). > The idea that anyone other than Roger ever "composed" anything he played is pretty laughable... It happened: a lot. Just like many of the melodies and words Freddie sang were not written by him, there are many drum parts Roger didn't write. He admitted himself that Sweet Lady was difficult because Brian wanted to have three things at the same time, and it was a bit hard to understand (implying Brian wrote the drum part). And as I said, the synth era brought loads of innovations: May could programme a drum machine and then Taylor replaced it by acoustic drums, but then again, he's PLAYED them but not COMPOSED the part. > suggesting things also isn't the same as composing... And playing things isn't the same as composing them > I doubt there are any home demos where there are even drums present. So? > And if any of them were wanting to dictate how another part was played, they played it them fucking selves. Wrong: you can compose something you're not able to play. Could Mozart sing all the bass, tenor, alto and soprano arias he wrote? Could Deacon sing all the melodies he'd written? Could Freddie play the orchestral instruments he co-scored for 'Barcelona'? Can Ben Elton deliver his lines as marvellously as Rowan Atkinson? Could Joaquin Rodrigo play the Aranjuez Concerto? Could Beethoven play all lines of all instruments of his symphonies? Can an ugly fashion designer model her dresses as graciously as Twiggy? Just like May composed Show Must Go On but couldn't sing it like Freddie, there are many drum parts he could compose but couldn't play (or sounded a hell of a lot better when played by Roger). Same for bass, piano, etc. > I'm pretty sure Brian even once mentioned on his soapbox that he was usually happy with what John put down... Which doesn't mean he composed it. May was also very happy with the vocal Freddie did in The Show Must Go On, but it doesn't change the fact that Brian wrote it. > pretty much confirming that he didn't write the basslines for his own songs Actually, he did, more often than not. > let alone the drums (because of course..... you write drum lines don't you!) I don't, Brian does, and very well btw. Cozy Powell, Roger Taylor and other drummers have done a marvellous job PLAYING drum parts that May COMPOSED. |
| Holly2003 01.02.2009 14:50 |
Fair enough Seb, but what do you make of Brian's interview where he discusses how songs that are already sketched out by the composer are often changed by the rest of the band? ISn't there more than enough there to suggest that your argument ("more often than not") is a bit dubious? This isn't a one-off interview either: Roger has said basically the same thing as Brian. |
| Sebastian 01.02.2009 19:26 |
> With all of us we would have the idea pretty much developed. Indeed that confirms what I said. > John didn’t sing, so generally he would have to talk Freddie through it, but he would have very clear ideas on what he wanted. Ditto > For instance, when John brought in “You’re My Best Friend,” it was pretty well mapped out—he even played the keyboard on that tune. Ditto > Oh yeah [laughs]. He would try. We would all try, but generally there would be a process of discussion. It was a good, healthy situation where we’d work together to find the best parts. 'A process of discussion' is completely different to 'the guitarist writes the guitar parts, the drummer writes the drum parts...'. Now, there are two main points in this discussion: - Can a person who's not a drummer write for drums, or a person who's not a guitarist write for guitar, or a person who'se not a bassist write for bass? Absolutely. So, it's absolutely possible that Bowie came up with UP bass-line (even if he wasn't a very good bassist), that May came up with the Sweet Lady drum part (which he did, although I doubt he could play it), that Taylor came up with certain piano parts (even if he couldn't play them), that Mercury could (and did) write for bass, drums and guitars even if he couldn't play those bits, etc. - Did Queen members leave the others create their own parts? Depends on the actual song. When I update my website, that'd be a nice addition: analysing each instrumental part and suggest (for I can't know for sure) whether the creator of the song also wrote it or whether somebody else contributed. I still think that more often than not..., and indeed Don't Stop Me Now is one of those 'not' cases. |
| Holly2003 02.02.2009 02:54 |
Seb you have picked one part of the interview and ignored the rest! The first bit does indeed say that the songs were often mapped out in advance (that's why I put those bits in italics). But Brian then goes on to say how those songs wyld then be subject to group discussion. Brian also says that John would even have guitar bits planned out for Brian to play but infers clearly that Brian would then put his own stamp on the solo. he also mentions the collaborative process for Killer Queen in which Brian states that it was he who came up with the 'bells' guitar solo. He also mentions the WATC solo that he created! |
| Sebastian 02.02.2009 02:59 |
Killer Queen and WaTC are two songs in a 100+ song discography. They don't necessarily represent the rest (just like One Vision hardly represents their catalogue). And again, 'discussion' isn't the same as 'the bassist wrote the bass-line', etc. I'm still interested in how this discussion opened in two big points: if they could, and if they did. The latter is to some extent debatable, but I still can't believe how some QZers still think only a drummer can write for drums, etc. Anyway, this has been one of the best debates on the forum these last months. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 02.02.2009 05:23 |
I don't disagree entirely, Sebastian, but I can't accept it when you call it "fact" that Queen's writers wrote most parts for their own songs. Every song is different, some came in completely finished, others were in studio collaborations. I can see germs of ideas coming from the writer i.e., "I'd like this pattern for the drums Roger", but again, it depends on the particular song. They may be two different schools of thought, but I'm sensing an inconsistency in your argument. On the one hand, you state (correctly) that you don't have to be a singer/bassist/guitarist etc. to be able to write parts for other instruments. Yet on the other hand, in the past you've dismissed the possibility that Roger could have written Innuendo based on the fact that the composition is so unlike him musically. Isn't it possible that all of the time he spent with Freddie took him to a place that he could communicate his thoughts verbally as to where the music should go, in the manner that John conveyed the vocal lines for his songs? Agree that this is a rare good discussion. |
| Amazon 02.02.2009 09:02 |
I don't know much about the technical side of music, but I was wondering if there are any instruments which are particularly difficult to compose for if one doesn't know the instrument all that well? For example, while Freddie may be able to compose for guitars, could he in fact compose complex arrangements for drums? |
| Sebastian 02.02.2009 09:20 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: I don't disagree entirely, Sebastian, but I can't accept it when you call it "fact" that Queen's writers wrote most parts for their own songs. Every song is different, some came in completely finished, others were in studio collaborations. I can see germs of ideas coming from the writer i.e., "I'd like this pattern for the drums Roger", but again, it depends on the particular song. They may be two different schools of thought, but I'm sensing an inconsistency in your argument. On the one hand, you state (correctly) that you don't have to be a singer/bassist/guitarist etc. to be able to write parts for other instruments. Yet on the other hand, in the past you've dismissed the possibility that Roger could have written Innuendo based on the fact that the composition is so unlike him musically. Isn't it possible that all of the time he spent with Freddie took him to a place that he could communicate his thoughts verbally as to where the music should go, in the manner that John conveyed the vocal lines for his songs? Agree that this is a rare good discussion. Fair enough: I agree with most of your post (especially the 'every song is different' bit), except the Innuendo thing. The reason: it's not the same, although on the surface it looks like a similar case. Consider the following: - You don't need to be a bassist to compose an elaborated bass line, but you do need to be a composer and/or arranger. So of course it's possible for May to write, note for note, the bass-line in Show Must Go On, even if he couldn't play it that well. But it doesn't mean Britney Spears can compose a symphony, or score a choral arrangement. - For that same reason, of course Roger could write a guitar solo like Modern Times R'n'R, even if he couldn't play it (disclaimer: I'm not assuming he did it, but I'm stating he was able to compose it), because that solo requires *only* a basic knowledge of scalar fragments in quavers (which he did, since the vocal melody follows a similar formula) and enough creativity (which Taylor of course had). It's got nothing to do with guitar ability per se. - In the case of Innuendo, composing the song (as in organising the structure, executing the modulations, putting all those time-signature changes), it's not only about creativity and the controversial notion of 'innate talent'. You need more than that: you need to be proficient on composing details in a way Roger wasn't (which doesn't mean Freddie was 'better', but of course he was far more advanced). It's like me trying to write French poetry, when all I can say in that language is a (rather poor) 'je m'a pelle Sebastian' (and I reckon I spelt it wrong). - Conclusion: it's not the same. The fact that 'you don't need to be an expert on the instrument in order to compose for it' doesn't mean that 'anybody can write anything out of thin air'. Of course, Queen were professional musicians, and that's why my point stands: Brian was clever enough to create a drum part, even if he couldn't play it; but try asking Justin Timberlake to compose a trumpet concerto... we're talking about different musicianship levels here. - To add a bit more, writing a bass-line, a piano-part or a choral arrangement over a song (melody+chords) you composed yourself (e.g. Taylor writing piano parts on his own songs) is completely different to coming up with a 20+ chord 3+ key-change 3+ metre change piece overnight. In that department, composing and arranging are different worlds. PS: Technically, 'more often than not' isn't the same as 'most parts for their own songs'. Tad different percentage. > I was wondering if there are any instruments which are particularly difficult to compose for if one doesn't know the instrument all that well? Very good question. It always depends on the case: professional composers need to have at least a clear idea of what the instrument can and can't do (or the instrumentalist, if you're deliberately writing the part for another person, which may be the case in Queen very often). Sometimes not knowing the instrument very well may result in coming up with very interesting parts for it, like when Brian wrote the drum-part for Sweet Lady: it's very original, very clever and quite difficult, precisely because it was composed by a person who wasn't familiar with the way drummers normally think. Talk about serendipity! Likewise, many complicated classical guitar pieces may come from piano players, because they've got a different approach, which challenges the guitarist's comfort zone, and that's why they're both interesting and difficult (sometimes). Now, even though it's not complicated or classical, the Innuendo solo (the basic pattern) is written on a very pianistic way, which may suggest it was written on keyboards first. Same as many of Brian's solos (both the ones he wrote and the ones he *only* played, very well btw) originated by singing. > For example, while Freddie may be able to compose for guitars, could he in fact compose complex arrangements for drums On the one hand, remember the case of May and Sweet Lady. On the other, none of the drum arrangements in Freddie's songs is very complex as such. None of the drum arrangements in Roger's songs is either, to be fair :) (maybe Loser in the End at the ...end, but that's not much complex as it is creative and clever, which isn't necessarily the same). |
| Holly2003 02.02.2009 12:22 |
Sebastian wrote: Killer Queen and WaTC are two songs in a 100+ song discography. They don't necessarily represent the rest (just like One Vision hardly represents their catalogue). And again, 'discussion' isn't the same as 'the bassist wrote the bass-line', etc. I'm still interested in how this discussion opened in two big points: if they could, and if they did. The latter is to some extent debatable, but I still can't believe how some QZers still think only a drummer can write for drums, etc. Anyway, this has been one of the best debates on the forum these last months. Indeed, but those are just the ones that came up in that short interview that I found at random. When you add Bo Rap to that list, and (probably) Dont Stop me Now, then it seems that Brian's contention that (many? most? some?) songs were genuinely a group effort, makes it less likely that your are correct. In fact, I would say common sense says that you aren't: it's simply much more likely that on something like KYA (for example) Brian didn't 'write' or even direct the drum break, but simply asked Roger to compose it. Or maybe there was no drum solo in the original song composed by Brian and it was Roger's idea to include one. To pick some other random examples, Brighton Rock is Brian's but it started as a jam session, so it's unlikely that Brian wrote the drum or bass. On the other hand, it's not hard to imagine Roger writing the rhythm guitar lines for Brian in IILWMC but I just can't picture him writing the solos. It's much more likely Brian composed those himself. The Propeht's song is an interesting one: what's your take on that? Do you think Brian or Fred composed the vocal 'improv' in the middle section? I agree this is a great subject. I'm fascinated by composition and breakdown of songs and I wish it was something Queen had the will or foresight to put down on film. A long time ago I saw a documentary about the Beatles, a fly on the wall look at them recording, and I often wish Queen had done something similar, The one time they did do it, for One Vision, the awful torpedo twins edited the footage so poorly that we only have a glimpse of how that session went. |
| Sebastian 03.02.2009 09:22 |
Queen debut album was reportedly more collaborative so maybe Rog did create the drum break in KYA, but as for the verse+chorus pattern, I'm pretty sure it's all May. Brighton Rock bass-line is very Jones-esque, so I expect that to come from May (a more Zeppelin fan) rather than Deacy. Same for Doing All Right. John played them, but didn't compose them. Prophet's Song: All May, note for note. Live, Fred did add some of his own things. As for solos in Roger's songs, let's see: Modern Times Rock 'n' Roll: Roger couldn't play it, but he of course could compose it (for reasons already explained). Loser in the End: To create the fills after some vocal phrases, you don't need to be a guitarist: you only need to have some basic knowledge of blues-rooted rock (which Roger had). Even if Taylor weren't able to play guitar at all (hell, even if he had no hands!) he could compose that as long as he's got enough skills as songwriter (which he had, this is Roger Taylor we're talking about, not Justin Timberlake). Same for the actual solo and the ending bits. Now, the biggest possibility is that neither Roger nor Brian composed those things beforehand: they sound more improvised than anything. Tenement Funster: Again, the solo uses loads of scalar fragments, and so do the fills (actually, some of them do the same as backing vocals). As long as you've got enough creativity and imagination, you can have no hands but you can still compose it. And of course, Rog had enough knowledge to create that even if he couldn't play it. I'm in Love With My Car: Though there's no solo as such, the fills are, again, mostly scalar, and the licks done to complete the vocal phrases are again something Roger could easily compose, even if he didn't play them. Drowse: You don't need to be a guitarist to create that two-chord slide bit that dominates the song. Sheer Heart Attack: The feedback bits are probably more improvised than written. But look: on FftI, both May and Taylor are credited for guitars, here only Taylor. Fight from the Inside: No solo as such, and guitar fills follow a similar construction to the vocals. Hence, whoever wrote the vocals could write the guitars. Fun It, More of that Jazz: Ditto Rock It: Great solo, but again, you don't need to be a guitarist to compose it, you've got to know knowledge of ascending fragments and rhythm dynamics (which Roger, a drummer, is an expert on). Coming Soon: The whole hocket concept (so-so) is similar to the 'duet' formed by vocals on Action this Day. Again, whoever wrote one could (and most likely did) write the other. You don't need to be a guitarist, just a composer (and Roger was, and a very good one!). Action this Day & Calling All Girls: No solo as such, and some parts are probably played by Rog himself. Radio Ga Ga: All guitar does is some arpeggios (which appear on loads of Roger's songs) and that solo that's got about three or four notes... even Roger's toddler son could compose that! A Kind of Magic: For this particular one I suspect that Mercury could've had more input than anyone else. Mostly ascending (and descending) diatonic scales working antiphonally. Again, you don't need to be a guitarist to compose that. May did an extraordinary job playing those, but he didn't write the notes. Don't Lose Your Head: No solo as such. Breakthru: Again, there's scalar dominance. You don't need to be a guitarist to write that. The only thing that was probably not Roger's idea was the additional measure with the 'addendum' to modulate. But that's not related to playing guitar or not: that's related with a compositional vocabulary Roger didn't have enough command on (and reportedly he hated modulations so...). Invisible Man: That's one Roger probably wouldn't compose. But the reason isn't 'not being a guitarist', the reason is not having enough experience in chromatic fragments organised that way. Ride the Wild Wind: To create those ascending guitar things in the intro you don't need to be a guitarist, you just need to be a creative person, and Roger was, very much. Same for the synth parts, even if he didn't play them. Same for the bass indeed. Days of Our Lives: Roger's command of such dynamics wasn't up for the job. But then again, that's got nothing to do with not playing guitar. So, as you can see: more often than not, Roger could have easily composed all the guitar parts of his own songs. And in some cases he also played them. Can Brian write a flute solo? Of course he can, even if he doesn't play the instrument. Can Roger write a piano piece? Of course he can, even if he can't play it himself. Can Deacon write a four-part vocal harmony? Of course he can, even if he needs other to sing it. Could Mercury compose an orchestral bass line? Of course he could, even if he couldn't play it. |
| john bodega 03.02.2009 11:14 |
Not to stray from the topic, but the mere mention of the TATDOOL solo brings me back to an early 90's guitar magazine I have where Nuno Bettencourt interviews Brian May. He says that solo was one take? 1 or 100 takes, it's beautiful! |
| Sebastian 03.02.2009 11:23 |
I think that's the best solo on a Queen song. WWTLF is a close second. BTW, more often than not, the guitar solos were done in one take (not necessarily the first, but one take anyway). |
| scallyuk 03.02.2009 18:03 |
Seb I find your analysis fascinating . I don't always agree but your take on it is very interesting. What I do note is that you approach "pop" and "rock" composing from a classical standpoint talking of writing guitar solos as though they are part of a classical piece. You have obviously not spent long working with a rock band or you have little experience of the group dynamics that exist there. As we know credits for Queen songs were given to the one who came up with the original idea (all band members have confirmed this) Within a dynamic and opinionated band like queen it is likely that a rough demo would either show a basic (often VERY basic) guitar part for Brian to play around with until he came up with something that they agreed on or the composer would say "I need a guitar solo here, I thought that something like xxx would fit" , maybe singing an idea or often just leaving it up to the guitarist to work on. There's also something called ego (and none of the band members were short on that) that gets in the way , Can you imagine saying to one of them, "ok I want you to play this note for note." The phrase "who's the F**king guitarist/bassist/drummer in this band" would have been heard a few times . That's not to say it didn't happen just that it was more likely the exception rather than the norm |
| Sebastian 03.02.2009 20:29 |
> What I do note is that you approach "pop" and "rock" composing from a classical standpoint talking of writing guitar solos as though they are part of a classical piece. Maybe, although it's very hard to tell 'classical' from 'popular' in absolutes. Moreover, the Queen case is different to 'regular' rock bands. > You have obviously not spent long working with a rock band or you have little experience of the group dynamics that exist there. While that's true, the point stands: Queen members were independent composers, and they have confirmed that several times: four writers with very different songs. Things like 'what should we call the album?', 'where is the tour finishing?', 'what's the next single'?... were indeed discussed democratically. For things like 'how is the bass-line going to be?', it's up to the creator of the song. > As we know credits for Queen songs were given to the one who came up with the original idea (all band members have confirmed this) Indeed. And they've also confirmed that the one who wrote the song got his way with how it went. They also said that he'd got it all 'mapped out', etc. > Within a dynamic and opinionated band like queen it is likely that a rough demo would either show a basic (oftenVERY basic) guitar part for Brian to play around with until he came up with something that they agreed on or the composer would say "I need a guitar solo here, I thought that something like xxx would fit", maybe singing an idea or often just leaving it up to the guitarist to work on. Or writing the whole melody. Same for other instruments. > There's also something called ego (and none of the band members were short on that) that gets in the way, Indeed, and that's partly why more often than not, the creator of the song wrote all parts for all instruments and vocals. > Can you imagine saying to one of them, "ok I want you to play this note for note." Part of the band dynamics implied that: 'when it's my song, they'll do what I want, when it's his song, we'll do what he wants...' > The phrase "who's the F**king guitarist/bassist/drummer in this band" would have been heard a few times Same with 'who's the f**king author of this song?' > That's not to say it didn't happen just that it was more likely the exception rather than the norm As the Roger list proves, it may well be the norm. Again, there are two important points in the discussion: 1. Can a person write for an instrument they don't play? YES. 2. Does a person compose everything in their own songs? IT DEPENDS. People have discussed both points, mostly arguing that: 1. How can you write if you're not an expert? --> Already explained 2. The standards for classical music may not apply in rock --> True, but ... Again, Queen weren't a band of four teens that strummed around three chords and had an improvised repetitive melody. They were four capable musicians who easily could compose for any of the four 'basic' instruments (i.e. all four of them could write very good lines for piano, bass, drums and guitar, and of course lead and backing vocals). So, the standard applied in most rock bands (even if that's 99.99% of them) may not be the case here (same with, say, The Beatles, omitting the Martin contributions in additional instruments). |
| john bodega 04.02.2009 02:30 |
I'm delving into baseless supposition here (!) But I have a feeling John was more involved in the writing of his own basslines than the interviews and behind the scenes material would seem to indicate (in this thread at least). Either that, or Brian and Roger (I'll get to Paul in a minute) lost their knack for writing bass lines when it came time to do TCR. There really is almost none of that lyrical approach to the basslines in the new work, whatever your feeling about the album itself is (I don't hate it as much as many people do). Paul Rodgers, of course, fouls up my theory somewhat because he's there when he wasn't before, and is credited with some of the bass duties. It's also been said about the new album that it's very organic and jam based, therefore it's possible that they didn't spend much time composing the bass beforehand, among other things. So I dunno, if it'd been a more craftsman-like effort on the part of Q+PR, maybe the basslines (what a thing to dwell on.. I'm getting old) would've had a bit of a flair to them. 'Lyrical', as Brian called it, and I think that's more or less the correct term for John's bass work in the past. It's the sort of stuff you can sing or hum. Of course we could just ... ASK John! Who has the keys to the cellar? |
| Sebastian 04.02.2009 05:05 |
But the bass-lines weren't lyrical in songs like Tie Your Mother Down or I'm in Love With My Car, which is (I suppose, since I haven't heard the album) the sort of music Roger and Brian are doing with Paul most of the time. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 04.02.2009 05:06 |
"Indeed, and that's partly why more often than not, the creator of the song wrote all parts for all instruments and vocals." No way Sebastian. Too many suppositions here to be calling a statement like that fact. If you're using people's trademarks as it were to establish who wrote what songs, for example, Freddie wrote in Eb a lot, the others didn't, therefore it's a Freddie song, (not your words BTW), then how about a Brian trademark of A & A/D in both first and second positions? He uses that off the top of my head in Liar, Tear it up, It's Late, and most famously We will rock you. Are you telling me that Roger Taylor "wrote" the solo for A kind of magic? There is nothing in Roger's guitar playing history to suggest that he's capable of anything but scuffly, nice little leads. Now we're supposed to believe that he's "writing" a jazzy first lead, followed by harmony guitars coming from everywhere? Not happening. That's a Brian May solo 100%. And none of Queen's music, to the best of my knowledge was "written" in standard music notation. So how would Roger "write" a solo like the one in AKOM or Coming Soon or Rock it? Would he hum it to Brian, play it on a keyboard, whistle every note including the harmonies? Becasue if he didn't do that, he didn't "write" the part for the instrument. I can see having an outline or a melody that the other players can run with, and that idea could be construed as writing in the loosest sense of the term. But I can't see John Deacon "writing" out a crash cymbal opening for Need your loving tonight, anymore than I could see Brain May "writing" the amazing drums from Brighton Rock. As someone just posted, given the amateurish bass playing on TCR, that leads credence to your argument in one way: that if having an idea is writing (Freddie may have told John to play walking bass line in CLTCL), then they truly can write for "all instruments", but based on the efforts on TCR, they write very poorly without a pro palyer to bring it to life. |
| john bodega 04.02.2009 06:39 |
Sebastian wrote: But the bass-lines weren't lyrical in songs like Tie Your Mother Down or I'm in Love With My Car, which is (I suppose, since I haven't heard the album) the sort of music Roger and Brian are doing with Paul most of the time. So it begs the question, what's more important; the author or the genre? Brian wrote Save Me and that's some of my favourite playing from Deacy. I wonder ... ! Genre wise, there's a fairly similar song to Save Me on the new album called Some Things That Glitter, the bass on that isn't really too memorable. I'll have to give it another listen before I go condemning it again, though. |
| Sebastian 04.02.2009 17:39 |
> Too many suppositions here to be calling a statement like that fact. Not really: the thing's still: you don't need to be a virtuoso guitarist to write very good guitar parts. And that's not a supposition. Many have done it. Freddie, Roger and John among them. > If you're using people's trademarks as it were to establish who wrote what songs, for example, Freddie wrote in Eb a lot, the others didn't, therefore it's a Freddie song, (not your words BTW), While that's an oversimplified statement, I agree that it's in essence the whole 'formula'. And that's precisley why I can be sure that Roger could (and most likely did) write the solos for most of his songs, since they follow a similar pattern. Now, could Roger write the It's a Hard Life solo? No, but that's not related to his (limited) ability to play guitar. > then how about a Brian trademark of A & A/D in both first and second positions? He uses that off the top of my head in Liar, Tear it up, It's Late, and most famously We will rock you. Tear it Up, It's Late and We Will Rock You are all his songs. Liar... he's confirmed all of them worked together on it. So there you go. > Are you telling me that Roger Taylor "wrote" the solo for A kind of magic? No, for that particular one I expect to be a more collaborative effort, with Mercury's dominance. But then again, it's got nothing to do with not being a guitarist. > There is nothing in Roger's guitar playing history to suggest that he's capable of anything but scuffly, nice little leads. You don't have to be able to play a part in order to compose it. > Now we're supposed to believe that he's "writing" a jazzy first lead, followed by harmony guitars coming from everywhere? Which part are you referring to btw? The 'jazzy' thing, maybe not (but not because he's not a guitarist), but the scalar solo is within all four's abilities as composers. The harmonies aren't *that* complicated (although they're marvellously executed), anybody with good knowledge to write vocal harmonies is also able to compose those guitar harmonies. And all of them (Roger, Brian, John and Freddie) were very good to write vocal harmonies. > That's a Brian May solo 100%. Noy 100%. Maybe 20%. Now, Days of Our Lives is another story. > And none of Queen's music, to the best of my knowledge was "written" in standard music notation. Which doesn't mean it wasn't written > So how would Roger "write" a solo like the one in AKOM or Coming Soon or Rock it? He could tell Bri 'play an ascending scale, then reverse it', and so on. Or indeed he could sing it to him. > whistle every note including the harmonies? For harmonies, he coul've instructed him where to place them and all. Again, if he could do it on vocals (which he could), he could do it on guitar (composing, even if he wasn't able to play them). > But I can't see John Deacon "writing" out a crash cymbal opening for Need your loving tonight, You don't need to be a drummer to create that. You need to have enough imagination and skills as songwriter, which Deacy of course had. > anymore than I could see Brain May "writing" the amazing drums from Brighton Rock. Considering the quality of the drums May programmed for his solo career (some of which were later on replaced hit by hit by Cozy and others), he's a very good (and very underrated) composer for drums. > As someone just posted, given the amateurish bass playing on TCR, that leads credence to your argument in one way According to that, we could also assume that John and Freddie wrote The Prophet's Song, since there's no song like that on TCR (as far as I know). The 'amateurish' bass may reflect: 1. That they didn't write more elaborate lines because they wouldn't be able to play them too well. But it doesn't mean they couldn't write for bass. If Bob Dylan had been the Queen singer, Deacy would have to write much simpler vocal lines, but it doesn't mean he couldn't write something like Best Friend. 2. That their music today is much simpler (see TPS thing) 3. That, again, the quality of a written music is also relative to the quality of the performer. Would've Killer Queen been a beautiful melody if The Clash sang it? > but based on the efforts on TCR, they write very poorly without a pro palyer to bring it to life. Which confirms the point above: if you've got only amateur bassists, you write amateur lines. But it doesn't mean that Show Must Go On or Teo Torriatte lines weren't composed by Dr May. And then again, it doesn't mean Freddie couldn't write for bass, since Fred's not involved in TCR. > So it begs the question, what's more important; the author or the genre? That changes from song to song. There's another important ingredient there: era. > Brian wrote Save Me and that's some of my favourite playing from Deacy. I wonder ... ! That particular one's got a very nice balance between 'lyrical' and 'rhythmic'. Judging by May's work on guitars and vocals, he'd got enough creativity to write that. Now, did he? Maybe, maybe not, maybe 'twas a bit of both. For 'The Game', their strategy was not to discuss too much into the details of what each one did. Now, for other albums (like 'Opera' or 'Hot Space', and from then on), the story's completely different. I expect some bass, drums, piano, guitars and vocals in the 'News' album to have a 'do it as you like it' component, rather than being too strict. > Genre wise, there's a fairly similar song to Save Me on the new album called Some Things That Glitter, the bass on that isn't really too memorable. But part of it may be the fact they hadn't got a bass player to pull it off. In his solo career, May didn't write any vocal melody as demanding as The Show Must Go On, but it doesn't mean he couldn't do it. |
| Danne 06.02.2009 15:50 |
Interesting discussion, to say the least. But I have to agree with quite a lot of the arguments against Sebastian on this one. The lack of understanding for how a rock band works (and Queen were a rock band, no matter how talented they were) shines through somewhat. But there's one factor that, to me, suggests that the individual band members input in their own musical parts were bigger than Sebastian states, and that is the fact that the playing style of each member of Queen often shines through in the way the parts are "composed" (which is a term I really don't like in this context, since much of what's played is improvised, although following a basic pattern). The "Under Pressure" example is a good one. Although it's quite possible that Bowie "composed" the main riff, I would bet that the rest of the bass playing on that song is Deaky following his instincts and the harmonic structure of the song, and not playing a bass part composed by David Bowie. (And that's what I read into Deaky's statement regarding that song.) |
| Sebastian 06.02.2009 17:40 |
Of course one's personal style's noticeable, but it also happens with vocals, and it doesn't mean Freddie co-wrote every single melody he sang. Queen were a rock band, but many things they did weren't rock at all. And they had the particularity that all four members were songwriters, and all four members were capable of writing for the basic instruments (drums, piano, bass, guitar) and vocals (lead and backing), even if they weren't skilful players in all of them. PS: Not 100% of rock bands work the same way. In Kansas, Kerry Livgren (amazing pianist and guitarist, but only an *ok* singer and afaIk he didn't play bowed strings) composed, note for note, loads of violin, viola and cello parts, as well as vocal melodies. So, again: John Deacon, not being a drummer himself, could compose for drums (and did so). John Deacon, not being a guitarist himself, could compose for guitars (and did so). John Deacon, not being a pianist himself, could compose for piano (and did so). John Deacon, not being a keyboardist himself, could compose for keys (and did so). John Deacon, not being a singer himself, could compose for vocals (and did so). Roger Tayor, not being a guitarist himself, could compose for guitar (and did so). Roger Tayor, not being a pianist himself, could compose for piano (and did so). Roger Tayor, not being a bassist himself, could compose for bass (and did so). Brian May, not being a drummer himself, could compose for drums (and did so). Brian May, not being a bassist himself, could compose for bass (and did so). Freddie Mercury, not being a drummer himself, could compose for drums (and did so). Freddie Mercury, not being a guitarist himself, could compose for guitar (and did so). Freddie Mercury, not being a bassist himself, could compose for bass (and did so). |
| Danne 07.02.2009 04:13 |
I think that we have to start with a definition of what "composing" actually is. It might just be that we apply that term in different way. For instance, if I write a song (and by writing a song I mean composing a melody, writing the lyrics and providing the chords, which is the standard way of presenting a new song in a rock band) and I tell the bassist "follow my chord structure. In the verse I want you to play mostly 8th notes, but in the chorus focus on quarter notes, and play in a higher register", does that mean I have "composed" the bass part? |
| Holly2003 07.02.2009 04:14 |
Let's try this one: John Deacon, not being a drummer himself, could compose for drums (and perhaps occasionally did so. However, in most case there's no way to know how often or how much he did that, or how much input Roger Taylor had. Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean they did do something, especially in a band situation where it would be normal to defer to the specialist musician.) John Deacon, not being a guitarist himself, could compose for guitars (and occasionally did so. However, in most case there's no way to know how often or how much he did that, or how much input Brian May had. Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean they did do something, especially in a band situation where it would be normal to defer to the specialist musician.) Roger Tayor, not being a guitarist himself, could compose for guitar (and occasionally did so. However, in most case there's no way to know how often or how much he did that, or how much input Brian May had. Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean they did do something, especially in a band situation where it would be normal to defer to the specialist musician. It's unlikly that a poor-ish guitarist like Taylor could compose difficult licks such as those played by Brian on Taylor's songs. Much more likely that Brian improvised them). Roger Tayor, not being a bassist himself, could compose for bass (and perhaps occasionally did so. However, in most case there's no way to know how often or how much he did that, or how much input John Deacon, Brian May or Freddie Mercury had. Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean they did do something, especially in a band situation where it would be normal to defer to the specialist musician.). Brian May, not being a drummer himself, could compose for drums (and perhaps occasionally did so. However, in most case there's no way to know how often or how much he did that, or how much input Roger Taylor had. Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean they did do something, especially in a band situation where it would be normal to defer to the specialist musician.) Brian May, not being a bassist himself, could compose for bass (and perhaps occasionally did so. However, in most case there's no way to know how often or how much he did that, or how much input John Deacon had. Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean they did do something, especially in a band situation where it would be normal to defer to the specialist musician) Freddie Mercury....and so on. Not trying to be an ass, just giving an alternative and imo much more likely pov. |
| Karfan 07.02.2009 05:48 |
One thing: John Deacon WAS a guitarist-that was his first instrument and he played very often in studio and as you know even live.And he was very good at it... For example in Who needs You most of the guitars including solos are probably played by Deacy,most of the guitars in Misfire,he plays that funky guitar in AOBTD,he plays all the guitars in Cool Cat and so on .... |
| Sebastian 07.02.2009 07:31 |
Yes, but he probably wouldn't be able to play a solo like You and I (not that well anyway). Still, he of course had enough skills to compose it. > especially in a band situation where it would be normal to defer to the specialist musician. The specialist player isn't necessarily the specialist composer. In Queen, the four of them were capable of writing for vocals, drums, bass, guitars and keys, and the four of them composed for vocals, drums, bass, guitars and keys. > It's unlikly that a poor-ish guitarist like Taylor could compose difficult licks such as those played by Brian on Taylor's songs. You don't need to be a very good guitarist in order to compose very good guitar licks, solos, choirs, etc. In fact, as long as you've got enough creativity and skills as songwriter (which Taylor had), you can compose a guitar solo even if you've got no hands. Likewise, John Deacon, not a singer, composed beautiful parts for vocals; Kerry Livgren, not a violinist, composed beautiful parts for violin; Mozart, not an opera singer, composed exceptional operatic arias. Part of the variety on Queen's arrangements is precisely because: The four of them composed guitar parts, even if most of them were played by only one of them. The four of them composed piano parts, even if the more elaborate ones were played by one. The four of them composed vocal melodies, even if the more elaborate ones were sung by one. The four of them composed vocal choirs, even if many of them were sung by one or two. The four of them composed bass parts, even if most of them were played by only one. The four of them composed drum parts, even if most of them were played by only one. |
| Danne 10.02.2009 14:15 |
Danne wrote: I think that we have to start with a definition of what "composing" actually is. It might just be that we apply that term in different way. For instance, if I write a song (and by writing a song I mean composing a melody, writing the lyrics and providing the chords, which is the standard way of presenting a new song in a rock band) and I tell the bassist "follow my chord structure. In the verse I want you to play mostly 8th notes, but in the chorus focus on quarter notes, and play in a higher register", does that mean I have "composed" the bass part? I shameless quote myself :) , because I really would want your opinion on this, Sebastian. |
| Sebastian 10.02.2009 17:07 |
There's a thin line there... I'd say: 'no, unless you also tell him which notes to play' (or at least which pattern: 1-8-1, 1-5-8-9-8, etc). But, in the case the bassist picks which notes to play, he hasn't composed it 100% either. There's no right or wrong in this situation. Now, something else: virtually everybody will add or change some notes in their own performance (just check a piano sonata made by four different players, talk about Rashomon!), which doesn't mean they've 'written' a new version of the part. Same for singing: Liza changed the melody for 'no pleasure cruise', and it suits her better, but the melody's still composed by Mercury. |