| Holly2003 27.06.2015 08:08 |
John Lennon once said that Lennon & McCartney would have been successful with two other musicians whereas Harrison and Star wouldn't (source: The Words and Music of George Harrison by Ian Inglis). Couldn't the same be said of Queen? Fred and Brian would have been successful with 2 other musicians but Roger and John wouldn't? |
| The King Of Rhye 27.06.2015 09:46 |
Hmm.....well you could probably say something similar about a lot of successful, popular bands.....in both cases (John and Paul, and Freddie and Brian) you're talking about the main songwriters and vocalist(s). It's hard to say, I'd think....who's to say if there never had been a Queen, Roger or John wouldn't have gone on to successful careers with some other band? |
| Sebastian 27.06.2015 10:58 |
Each being 25% of the band works as a lovely party line to illustrate how generous, modest and fair they were, but it doesn't mean things were actually like that. We'll never know, as we weren't there, but from what we can gather from the consumers' perspective, Freddie was the dominant force when it came to composing, writing, arranging, producing and singing (both lead and harmonies). Then again, he was less involved on other areas where John (who didn't sing and who wrote, arranged and produced less than his band-mates) had more importance, so it was quite balanced but not necessarily exactly 25% each. In terms of what you're asking (fame and fortune and everything that goes with it) one could argue that Queen without the likes of Ga Ga, Magic, Break Free and Dust would've still be remembered as a fairly successful band (with Bo Rhap and all that) which probably would've lasted around ten years. Queen without their early hits (most of which were Fred's) would've probably split up before John and Roger wrote their own. (I know, I know, they both wrote really good songs in the 70's, but out of those, only Best Friend was moderately successful, and it's not like that one was a big hit anyway). |
| matt z 27.06.2015 19:50 |
Short answer: Ask the cosmos rocks Better answer: (^^above^) In my opinion it's likely that only Brian and Roger would havebeen in the rock pantheon without having met each other. I'll just explain because without Freddie's hanging around at SMILE gigs he wouldn't have felt comfortable enough to criticise and throw his input among others as it's been suggested he was extremely shy. He may have wound up an artist or fashion designer Roger would've given another band a shot and they might have Petered out. He also COULD sing rock and roll Brian would've given it a shot unless reduced to complete poverty. Otherwise he may have simply marketed models of his guitar to keep going on John would've been a successful electrician and tech guy. It also stands to reason obviously that they drastically encouraged and changed each other's lives. I.e. Brian could flesh out Freddie's more complicated ideas onto guitar. Freddie had incredible vision and savvy that modified existing songs and demos John wrote a few massive hits AND was really essential to Brian's guitar sound on albums with his DEAKY amp. Rhythmically John and Roger were a great unique backbone. I hate to speculate but they were ALL essential to the band's success. Hell, John even brokered deals and kept the business end in cross hairs of his deacon beacon |
| Jimmy Dean 27.06.2015 21:00 |
agree with matt z - 100% - here's my take: freddie was the talent & the awkward frontmant... brian was the wizard... john was marketing + finance and probably the one most respected in terms of decision making because he was likely the least biased... and roger was the glue. how can you split that? their solo efforts clearly showed that they could not do it on their own. as matt z said... "cosmos rocks" pretty much sums up brian + roger so in my mind, it's clear... each were essential to the machine that was Queen. |
| matt z 28.06.2015 05:32 |
*(well. .. to be fair. .. cosmos rocks incorporated a new third element and seemed rushed. It was also at the seemingly twilight of each respective partners careers *((I doubt this sincerely and know Brian and Roger still have some great work in the tank))* But as per the band it always seemed that without each other only Brian and Roger would have entered the mix. John had his wife as well. .. what's safer and more proper than caring for her and the new family? The band talked about possible splits before ANATO and THE WORKS as well as AKOM .... Say whatever but in my eyes they were an excellent and perfect combination. I'm sure the others took some heavy convincing to perform ridiculous (but incredible) stuff like THE MILLIONAIRES WALTZ. .. ad infintum. They met each other and the world was blessed and changed by their work |
| brENsKi 28.06.2015 07:21 |
The King Of Rhye wrote: Hmm.....well you could probably say something similar about a lot of successful, popular bands.....in both cases (John and Paul, and Freddie and Brian) you're talking about the main songwriters and vocalist(s).main songwriters..initially maybe. the first decade of the band definitely. but as for 80s output - i think Roger wrote at least as many - if not more songs than Freddie...and certainly both John & Roger wrote more hits (combined) from 80-91 than Freddie & Brian (combined) in fact, throughout the whole history of the band, Brian is the least successful "hit writer" |
| thomasquinn 32989 28.06.2015 08:27 |
My two cents: What makes Queen great is the chemistry between four different members. Each contributed to the overall sound that we recognize as "real Queen", but it is difficult to pinpoint what and how much each member contributed, and to what extent they influenced and modified each other's musical behaviour. Having said that, I do have a couple of observations, but they are not free from subjective notions. Freddie Mercury needed a counterbalance in the form of one or more other competent, creative musicians who did not greatly defer to him or were afraid to go against him but who did appreciate his talents and understand his quirks. When he went his own way entirely, his music lacked focus and sometimes became sloppy and lazy - he seemed a bit cavalier about what he did. Brian, John and Roger (I think in that order, in this particular case) would probably have been very important to allow Freddie Mercury to shine in this way. Brian May, on the other hand, needed, I think, the occasional "let's go already!"-push when he was about to get bogged down in details and nudges out of his musical comfort zone to avoid ending up doing the same thing over and over again, slowly improving on it, but also getting really boring for anyone who wasn't him. I think he needed Freddie more than he needed John in this sense, though I think Roger was probably also pretty instrumental there. Roger Taylor made sure the others didn't forget they were in a rock 'n roll band. That doesn't mean they should stick to the straight-up stuff, after all he brought a fairly unique way of playing to Queen, but everything had to be firmly rooted in that rock 'n roll tradition. When things were veering off too far into musical theatre, pseudo-opera or disco/funk, he generally pulled them into a more rock-oriented direction, but I get the impression that he either went back on that or didn't get his way from about '82-'86. John Deacon is to some extent an enigma. I'm pretty sure he understood the practical side of amplification better than anyone, even Brian, and that was of course an important part of what Queen's sound was (his pre-amp...) and his bass playing is original and solid, but I also get the impression that John was the most musically flexible and adaptable of the four. He was also, probably, the least rock 'n roll-oriented in the group, and that would certainly have encouraged Freddie, Brian and to a lesser extent Roger to stray further from the rock 'n roll foundations. I think John could've been a great success with any number of other bands, and I also think that he would have been recognized as an essential part of any band's success in retrospect, but I'm not sure any band other than Queen would have recognized him for what he was worth from the start, and in fact I'm not sure if the other three members of Queen knew fairly early on how lucky they were with John, or if it only began to dawn on them several years later. I find it very hard to, in a reasoned way, imagine how each of their musical careers could have looked without the other three guys. I think Freddie Mercury would have had little trouble finding a band that would appreciate his voice, but I don't know what sort of music he would've made, and how ambitious he would have been. He might well have gotten complacent or he might've been pushed out of the way by a lead guitarist with a very strong personality. Brian, although a great guitarist, is far from a typical one. I don't think he'd have had an easy time finding a band that complemented his sound and approach. I don't think John Deacon would have had any trouble finding a band and being a valuable addition to it, but I'm not sure if he'd have actively pursued a full-time musical career. I can totally picture him as a very happy and totally competent studio engineer who contributed the occasional awesome bass line. Roger Taylor, finally, is the one I think could most easily have been a succesful drummer in another band, PROVIDING he had the luck to join a band that had top-rate songwriters and excellent instrumentalists and vocalist(s), as he could not have managed on his own. Much of this is probably fairly obvious, and most of the rest is probably fairly speculative and subjective. |
| The Real Wizard 28.06.2015 10:20 |
brENsKi wrote: in fact, throughout the whole history of the band, Brian is the least successful "hit writer"Wow, never thought of it that way, but you're right. And the fact that his hits include WWRY, Fat Bottomed Girls, Who Wants to Live Forever and I Want It All, this goes to show the strength of the band. As for the original post - these hypothetical scenarios are almost impossible (and almost pointless) to picture. If you change one variable, the entire thing changes. But certainly in the 80s they would've been doomed with a bassist and drummer who didn't write songs - Taylor and Deacon wrote most of the hits ! |
| una999 28.06.2015 10:32 |
I think it's an irrelevant question. Queen were queen. That's why queen sounded like that because of the 4 members. It's like asking if your dad never met your mother. |
| brENsKi 28.06.2015 11:15 |
una999 wrote: I think it's an irrelevant question. Queen were queen. That's why queen sounded like that because of the 4 members. It's like asking if your dad never met your mother.no it isn't. discussion is discussion - it makes life interesting and it's nothing like asking if your dad never met your mother |
| Saint Jiub 28.06.2015 13:44 |
Brian also had Now I'm Here, Save Me, Flash, Las Palabras de Amor, Hammer to Fall, Show Must Go On, No One But You, and Let Me Live as UK Top 20 hits. However, Brian only has two Top 5 hits which is the fewest of the four band members. At least he is not a one-hit wonder. |
| Saint Jiub 28.06.2015 13:51 |
John Lennon certainly was an arrogant SOB. George Harrison arguably was the most successful solo artist of the four with hits extending into the 1990's. |
| master marathon runner 28.06.2015 15:36 |
Here, here Panchgani, He obviously never heard of 'all things must pass' |
| brENsKi 28.06.2015 16:34 |
Panchgani wrote: George Harrison arguably was the most successful solo artist of the four with hits extending into the 1990's.arguably by whose reckoning? care to explain where you glean some of your perceived facts from? depends how you measure success sales? - macca - by miles, then lennon, then harrison number of top ten hits? - well if you take their UK and USA mccartney - 26/7 lennon - 10/7 ringo - 5/5 george - 5/4 and what about top ten albums? UK/USA mccartney -19/15 lennon - 6/6 george - 4/6 ringo - 2/2 |
| Fireplace 28.06.2015 17:51 |
Funny how no one mentions the blend of the the voices. They would quite simply never have had the same vocal chemistry in any other line-up. Their succes rate in other bands would probably have depended on their new bandmates, I suppose either of them could have joined the Stones and still be tremendously successful, Joining Humpy Bong on the other hand might have sunk even the most promising musical career. |
| matt z 28.06.2015 19:40 |
Fireplace wrote: Funny how no one mentions the blend of the the voices. They would quite simply never have had the same vocal chemistry in any other line-up. Their succes rate in other bands would probably have depended on their new bandmates, I suppose either of them could have joined the Stones and still be tremendously successful, Joining Humpy Bong on the other hand might have sunk even the most promising musical career.HEY quit bashing Humpy Bong, they gave it their Pete Best! |
| Saint Jiub 28.06.2015 20:13 |
brENsKi wrote:Panchgani wrote: George Harrison arguably was the most successful solo artist of the four with hits extending into the 1990's.arguably by whose reckoning? care to explain where you glean some of your perceived facts from? ... As I already mentioned ... based on longevity and enduring popularity ... Lennon and McCartney were done with their top 10 hits by the early eighties. Harrison had 8 top 10 hits in the late eighties and early nineties. |
| Fireplace 28.06.2015 20:16 |
matt z wrote:They Stuart Suckliffed! Hmm, that didn't quite work....Fireplace wrote: Funny how no one mentions the blend of the the voices. They would quite simply never have had the same vocal chemistry in any other line-up. Their succes rate in other bands would probably have depended on their new bandmates, I suppose either of them could have joined the Stones and still be tremendously successful, Joining Humpy Bong on the other hand might have sunk even the most promising musical career.HEY quit bashing Humpy Bong, they gave it their Pete Best! |
| brENsKi 29.06.2015 07:30 |
Panchgani wrote:brENsKi wrote:... As I already mentioned ... based on longevity and enduring popularity ... Lennon and McCartney were done with their top 10 hits by the early eighties. Harrison had 8 top 10 hits in the late eighties and early nineties.Panchgani wrote: George Harrison arguably was the most successful solo artist of the four with hits extending into the 1990's.arguably by whose reckoning? care to explain where you glean some of your perceived facts from? utter rubbish - you're moving the goalposts to "singles" now to suit your argument. you said "most successful" - artists make much money form an album than a single - and macca has made load through the late 80s to date Macca - post "early 80s output" albums: 1986 - press to play - UK no8 (gold) 1989 - flowers in the dirt - UK no1 (platinum) / USA (gold) 1993 - off the ground - UK no5 (silver) / USA (gold) 1997 - Flaming Pie - UK no2 (gold) / USA no2 (gold) 2005 - Chaos & Creation - UK no10 (gold) / USA no6 (gold) 2007 - memory almost full - UK no5 (gold) / USA no3 (gold) 2012 - kisses on the Bottom - UK no3 / USA no3 2013 - new - Uk no3 / USA no5 |
| Saint Jiub 29.06.2015 09:44 |
brENsKi wrote:Panchgani wrote:brENsKi wrote:... As I already mentioned ... based on longevity and enduring popularity ... Lennon and McCartney were done with their top 10 hits by the early eighties. Harrison had 8 top 10 hits in the late eighties and early nineties.Panchgani wrote: George Harrison arguably was the most successful solo artist of the four with hits extending into the 1990's.arguably by whose reckoning? care to explain where you glean some of your perceived facts from? ... you said "most successful" - artists make much money form an album than a single ... I don't recall saying that. You sure you aren't thinking of someone else? However, speaking of albums ... After the the early eighties, Paul's platinum albums were only for one his small home country. Comparatively, after the early 1980's George had three platinum albums (one was multi-platinum. ... PS. I love you too. Baby you're hot. Let's get married. |
| tero! 48531 29.06.2015 09:58 |
Panchgani wrote: Lennon and McCartney were done with their top 10 hits by the early eighties. Harrison had 8 top 10 hits in the late eighties and early nineties.Paul still managed a #85 with "Ever Present Past", and Ringo had a #99 hit with the "Liverpool 8" back in 2007. Both of those chart placements are infinitely better than George has been able to come up with in the past ten years, which supposedly makes them better song writers? But you're absolutely right about John being the weakest link. He hasn't been able to write a hit in almost 35 years! |
| Saint Jiub 29.06.2015 10:24 |
Yep. Ringo's #99 pseudo-hit makes Ringo better than John and George |
| brENsKi 29.06.2015 10:42 |
Panchgani wrote: I don't recall saying that. You sure you aren't thinking of someone else?then perhaps you need your memory refreshing - i'll quote you again...here you go:- Panchgani wrote:George Harrison arguably was the most successful solo artist of the four with hits extending into the 1990's.and btw - George's last UK/USA top 10 single was "Got My Mind set On You" - 1987 - which came from his final top 10 album - Cloud 9. last time i checked that unless it had a fucking long chart run - he was not having top 10 hits extending into the 1990s In fact the ONLY hit he had in either UK or USA was posthumous reissue of MSL. macca's final top 10 singles were the same year. on the other hand he continued having top 10 albums into the 90s while harrison (still alive) didn't . funny how you can twist an argument rather than admit you may be wrong.- even going as far as claiming you never said something that i've now quoted you (twice) for - i suspect if i hadn't quoted you - you'd have gone back and edited you orig post. try admitting you are wrong for a change |
| Saint Jiub 29.06.2015 10:52 |
dbl post |
| Saint Jiub 29.06.2015 10:52 |
How can you forget George's band The Traveling Wilburys? George Singles: UK US AUS CAN GER IRL NL NOR SWE SWI "Got My Mind Set on You"19872111719101011 George Promotional Singles: US-AC US-Main "Devil's Radio" 1987 - 4 "Cloud 9" 1988 - 9 Traveling Wilburys Singles: US US-Main US-AC AUS CAN NZ UK 1988 "Handle with Care" 45 2 30 3 — 4 21 1989 "End of the Line" 63 2 28 12 — 11 52 1990 "She's My Baby" — 2 — 45 30 — 79 Other Wilburys charted songs: US Main CAN NZ UK 1988 "Last Night" 5 — — — 1989 "Heading for the Light" 7 — — — |
| brENsKi 29.06.2015 11:03 |
Panchgani wrote:How can you forget George's band The Traveling Wilburys?on that basis your argument gets further destroyed - as Paul had a huge worldwide hit last year "fourfiveseconds" with Rhianna & Kanye West. do you now see how idiotic your comments are? Panchgani wrote:"Got My Mind Set on You" 1987 2 1 1 1 7 1 9 10 10 11 "Devil's Radio" 1987 — 4 Cloud Nine "Cloud 9" 1988 — 9when did 1987/88 become "extended well into the 1990s" ? what is wrong with you? you really are a d**k of the first order. all this:- shifting the argument / claiming you never said something/then shifting the argument again/ then disregarding the actual point you initially made (re dates) are YOU sure you're not Gerry in disguise? |
| Saint Jiub 29.06.2015 11:34 |
Now you are throwing out insults. Very nice. I love you too honey. I accidentally hit POST before I finished my response. My full post is above. I forgot Kayne West. You forgot the Traveling Wilburys. Oh well ... Retabulating ... Since the late 80's, George had 8 top 10 hits, Paul had 2 top 10 hits. ... Also, you misquoted me again ... I said "extended into the 1990's" NOT "extended WELL into the 1990's. |
| brENsKi 29.06.2015 11:39 |
harrison never had a 90s hit single and those two you quote above were also 80s (promo singles) and their chart placings were not the official sales charts they were two specialist charts "billiboard adult contemporary" and "mainstream rock" you can't help yourself can you? you just proved my point. incapable of admitting you are wrong. just keep moving those goalposts Gerry. no point discussing further with you. carry on making your worthless, inaccurate, buffoon-based imaginings....anyone reading this thread can see you've chopped and changed your argument rather than admit being wrong. have your last word...enjoy it. good luck with the brain implant operation - your previous five have rejected you |
| una999 29.06.2015 17:29 |
SbrENsKi wrote:Yes it is. Your reply was as irrelevant as the question asked.una999 wrote: I think it's an irrelevant question. Queen were queen. That's why queen sounded like that because of the 4 members. It's like asking if your dad never met your mother.no it isn't. discussion is discussion - it makes life interesting and it's nothing like asking if your dad never met your mother |
| matt z 30.06.2015 02:13 |
RRRRRRAAAAGGRRGGHHH!!!!! [just had to put in my two cents] |
| tomchristie22 30.06.2015 03:39 |
Panchgani wrote: Lennon and McCartney were done with their top 10 hits by the early eighties. Harrison had 8 top 10 hits in the late eighties and early nineties.Yeah - Lennon wasn't really putting out any new material after early 1980s. Most peculiar! |
| tomchristie22 30.06.2015 03:43 |
Anyway, if we' speak purely in terms of songwriting credit, Lennon and McCartney had a #2 in the UK with 'Free as a Bird' in 1995, and Lennon had a #4 in the UK with 'Real Love' in the same year. |
| Stelios 30.06.2015 05:54 |
I think this is getting out of perspective. We are talking FREDDIE fucking MERCURY here. The arguably BEST MALE VOICE of contemporary music and most likely the BEST PERFORMER also. And its not only music we are talking about . Its entertaiment and show-bussiness and all that jazz. I mean seriously...? |
| brENsKi 30.06.2015 09:36 |
Stelios wrote: I think this is getting out of perspective. We are talking FREDDIE fucking MERCURY here.no we're not. we're talking ALL FOUR members - which is why the logical comparison was the beatles - as band that started out the same way - two chief writers, but then evolved as time went by into the other two members writing more songs. |
| Sebastian 30.06.2015 09:55 |
brENsKi wrote: as band that started out the same way - two chief writers, but then evolved as time went by into the other two members writing more songs.Queen's case was more of having *one* chief writer, one in second place, one contributing minimally and the other one not writing; eventually they evolved into a more balanced input. Beatles started off with a chief writing team of two, and eventually George shone as well; Ringo only wrote two songs and a bit of another (plus having a co-credit here and there), he wasn't really a songwriter as much as we could consider Roger Taylor to be a professional bassist because of a handful of limited-chord songs. |
| Stelios 30.06.2015 10:53 |
brENsKi wrote:The Beatles comparison seems fair to me.Stelios wrote: I think this is getting out of perspective. We are talking FREDDIE fucking MERCURY here.no we're not. we're talking ALL FOUR members - which is why the logical comparison was the beatles - as band that started out the same way - two chief writers, but then evolved as time went by into the other two members writing more songs. Was talking before the post took that root. Misleading initial first sentnce on my behalf. |
| Stelios 30.06.2015 10:53 |
D post. |
| musicland munich 30.06.2015 11:08 |
As far as I know QUEEN were a democratic Band. Every voice of every single band member counts when it comes down to a voting about songs or business decisions. |
| brENsKi 30.06.2015 16:11 |
Sebastian wrote:queen certainly didn't have "one chief writer" prior to the emergence of Taylor and Deacon. Queen had TWO chief writers...up until Hot Space the writing credits were: (in album order)brENsKi wrote: as band that started out the same way - two chief writers, but then evolved as time went by into the other two members writing more songs.Queen's case was more of having *one* chief writer, one in second place, one contributing minimally and the other one not writing; eventually they evolved into a more balanced input. Beatles started off with a chief writing team of two, . Mercury......5-6-6-5-4-3-5-3 May............4-4-4-4-4-4-4-3 but they (lennon and macca) weren't a "writing team". sure they were co-credited as "written by Lennon & McCartney" - but that's because that's what they agreed to when they set out - much like queen agreed to "written by Queen" for the last half of the 80s. truth is mOST of the "Lennon & McCartney" compositions were written by ONE of them - and NOT both there are even some major compositions like A Day In The Life - which was almost entirely John's save for the "woke up, got out of bed" passage |
| Sebastian 30.06.2015 17:06 |
brENsKi wrote: queen certainly didn't have "one chief writer" prior to the emergence of Taylor and Deacon. Queen had TWO chief writers...up until Hot Space the writing credits were: (in album order) Mercury......5-6-6-5-4-3-5-3 May............4-4-4-4-4-4-4-3Which means Freddie wrote 37 songs and Brian wrote 30.5 (on the first album Brian actually wrote 3.5, not 4). 37 is larger than 30.5, which means there was indeed one chief writer. |
| brENsKi 01.07.2015 01:24 |
i'll concede Sebastian. but it's certainly not a case of one person generating the vast majority and the remaining members getting a smattering is it? 40% is certainly a "main contributor" and as i said elsewhere; Brian didn't exactly write a lot of top 10 hits before the 1980s....so this perhaps makes his album track writing contribution more significant? |
| Sebastian 01.07.2015 02:43 |
brENsKi wrote: i'll concede Sebastian. but it's certainly not a case of one person generating the vast majority and the remaining members getting a smattering is it?It's not, and I did mention that on my initial post: there was a main songwriter, a second one, a third one and one that initially didn't write. |
| thomasquinn 32989 01.07.2015 05:02 |
Sebastian wrote:That is an utter rape of statistics and you know it. Let's take the '70s:brENsKi wrote: queen certainly didn't have "one chief writer" prior to the emergence of Taylor and Deacon. Queen had TWO chief writers...up until Hot Space the writing credits were: (in album order) Mercury......5-6-6-5-4-3-5-3 May............4-4-4-4-4-4-4-3Which means Freddie wrote 37 songs and Brian wrote 30.5 (on the first album Brian actually wrote 3.5, not 4). 37 is larger than 30.5, which means there was indeed one chief writer. Queen I: Freddie 5, Brian 4, Roger 1, John 0 Queen II: Freddie 6, Brian 4, Roger 1, John 0 SHA: Freddie 6, Brian 4, Roger 1, John 1 (+1 shared credit among all) ANATO: Freddie 5, Brian 4 (+1 arrangement), Roger 1, John 1 ADATR: Freddie 4, Brian 4, Roger 1, John 1 NOTW: Freddie 3, Brian 4, Roger 2, John 2 Jazz: Freddie 5, Brian 4, Roger 2, John 2 That makes Freddie 34, Brian 28, Roger 9, John 7. Freddie: 43.6% Brian: 35.9% Roger 11.5% John 9% Brian's contribution is 82% as big as Freddie's, but also 175% as big as Roger's and John's combined. Freddie and Brian combined accounted for 79.5% of the writing on the '70s records. Equally divided that would be 39.75% each. In reality, they deviated from this 'ideal' number by about 10%, which is very low. There were quite definitely two chief writers, not one. Your argument does not hold up to even superficial scrutiny. Honestly Sebastian, you know better than this. |
| Sebastian 01.07.2015 06:18 |
Queen I: Freddie 5, Brian 4, Roger 1, John 0No: Doing All Right was co-written. It's Brian 3.5. In reality, they deviated from this 'ideal' number by about 10%, which is very low.Not really that low. It's high enough, in my opinion, to put Freddie on a higher level of contribution. It doesn't diminish the value of Brian's input, it's just that, mathematically, there was a chief songwriter. Your argument does not hold up to even superficial scrutiny.Yes, it does. |
| thomasquinn 32989 01.07.2015 07:13 |
That's just a load of cr*p. There really is no point arguing with you, as you'll just come up with nonsense like this and are blind to reason once you've made up your mind. Too bad you can't get over yourself, as idiocy like this detracts from your more reasonable contributions on other topics. The statistics speak practically for themselves, and everyone here can see it. Too bad you can't. |
| brENsKi 01.07.2015 07:27 |
^^^ i didn't want to protract the argument - but Casper has (more or less) said what i was trying to convey |
| Stelios 01.07.2015 07:43 |
Sebastian are you really familiar with the term chief writter ? Its no way near to most prolific writter wich is true in freddies case but irrelevant to the coined term chief we are talking here. |
| Sebastian 01.07.2015 09:47 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: That's just a load of cr*p.Of course it's not. You're more than welcome not to agree with my use of the term 'chief writer' to refer to Freddie, but that doesn't mean my reasons for it (namely, that he wrote more songs than Brian) are 'just a load of cr*p.' thomasquinn 32989 wrote: There really is no point arguing with youOf course there is. Just because I don't agree with Brian being also a chief writer (I'd name him a 'deputy chief writer' but that sounds odd anyway) it doesn't mean there's no point arguing with me. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. thomasquinn 32989 wrote: you'll just come up with nonsense like thisIt's not nonsense: Brian did write 3.5 songs on the first album, and Freddie did write more songs than Brian. That qualifies for me to consider him the band's chief writer. thomasquinn 32989 wrote: are blind to reason once you've made up your mind.I'm not blind. I can see your point but I disagree. There's no set rule saying that a person must have written, say, 12.45% more than the other, to be considered a chief writer. The difference is subjective: for some people, Freddie would've needed to write, for instance, twice as much as Brian, to be considered 'chief' writer; for others, having written one song more would be enough. There's a difference between being blind to reason and simply disagreeing about reasons exposed and/or having reasons to come up with a different conclusion. thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Too bad you can't get over yourselfOf course I can. Just because I don't agree with your point it doesn't mean I can't get over myself. thomasquinn 32989 wrote: The statistics speak practically for themselves.Not really, as statistics can be interpreted in different ways, as we just have. thomasquinn 32989 wrote: everyone here can see it.There's no proof of that. Stelios wrote: Sebastian are you really familiar with the term chief writter ? Its no way near to most prolific writter wich is true in freddies case but irrelevant to the coined term chief we are talking here.Now that you mention it, 'most prolific writer' is indeed a far better term. Still, 'chief' means 'primary', so adjudicating the informal and unofficial title of 'chief writer' to the person who wrote more songs than anyone else in the band is not a mistake, semantically or linguistically. It can, of course, be debated, whether the difference between him and Brian is enough to regard Freddie as the 'chief' or 'co-chief' writer, and both points of view are entirely acceptable. |
| cmsdrums 02.07.2015 02:35 |
The archive set will come out and we'll learn that John and Roger wrote hundreds of songs each in the early days that the band worked on, but that just didn't make the final cut for the albums.....we'll then be able to definitively label John and Roger as the most prolific writers...!! :-) |
| Sebastian 02.07.2015 19:50 |
That'd be very interesting indeed. |
| on my way up 03.07.2015 03:15 |
All members were essential, Freddie and Brian were just a bit more equal ;-) Freddie was very right when he - tongue-in-cheek - said that: - he was not the leader but "perhaps the most important person in the band" - the reason for their succes was his "charisma" Freddie was an important ingredient in the early days that made them stand out. There's more to a band than just the music. *I didn't read through the entire topic :-) |
| ggo1 03.07.2015 11:06 |
were all four members really equal and essential? Well No.... but yes. No, patently Freddie and Brian had more influence on the early albums and Queens initial success. but yes... Each album would have sounded different if any one of them were replaced. |
| Holly2003 04.07.2015 12:01 |
Brian was the "Chief" writer. After all, he wrote White Man... |
| Sebastian 04.07.2015 14:35 |
If we skip 'Flash Gordon', we can divide the band's songwriting period (i.e., 'Made in Heaven' won't be included either as all but three of the songs were written in the 80's) in four: Queen to Opera Races to Game Hot Space & The Works Magic to Innuendo Out of those four periods, the first and third have Freddie as the lead songwriter, the second is 50-50 Freddie and Brian (each wrote exactly 15 album tracks) and the fourth had a four-way split in terms of credits, but was also Freddie dominated. Interesting to see that, indeed, the most commercially successful period, was the one that had two people sharing the driving seat... which might not be the best analogy considering Fred didn't drive but anyway... |
| Sebastian 05.07.2015 01:57 |
ggo1 wrote: Each album would have sounded different if any one of them were replaced.Well, of course! Not just the band members, but also engineers, external producers, roadies, people in charge of mastering, etc. But that's not the question. A person's not the same if you amputate their arms, but that doesn't mean their arms carry the same importance as the heart, brain or lungs. |
| brENsKi 05.07.2015 07:57 |
Sebastian wrote: If we skip 'Flash Gordon', we can divide the band's songwriting period (i.e., 'Made in Heaven' won't be included either as all but three of the songs were written in the 80's) in four:(whoa there!!!) i'm going to jump in here before Casper. Sebastian, ANYONE can win ANY argument by excluding data and grouping the remaining data to suit their argument. exclusion of TWO albums? grouping albums into segments of time that ensure your data looks "better"?... sheesh!!! over to you Casper |
| Sebastian 05.07.2015 12:05 |
brENsKi wrote: Sebastian, ANYONE can win ANY argument by excluding data and grouping the remaining data to suit their argument. exclusion of TWO albums? grouping albums into segments of time that ensure your data looks "better"?... sheesh!!!This is not about winning. It's not a competition. I explained my reasons for excluding those two. Actually, if we included them, Fred would be even more of a dominant songwriter... but that'd be pointless; several things on 'Flash Gordon' are reprises, so they shouldn't count as separate compositions, and the majority of 'Made in Heaven' was written for other albums. Those albums weren't excluded to 'win' any argument, they were excluded to establish timelines or groups you're more than welcome to agree or disagree with. But yeah, if you want to include them results wouldn't change: 'Flash' is dominated by Brian (if we count tracks) and by Freddie (if we count compositions), so it fits the 1976 - 1980 era. 'Made in Heaven', either way you count it, is dominated by Freddie: if we only count the actual post-Innuendo creations, then we've got three songs, one of which is Freddie's, the other is Freddie's and John's, the other is Freddie's and Brian's. So Fred's the chief songwriter. If we count everything on 'Made in Heaven', then there are, in total, 5 by Freddie (4 + 2/2), 1 by Roger, 1.5 by John, 0.83 by Brian and whatever 'Let Me Live' stands for. So it's not about modifying stats... by including those two 'albums,' Fred's would be even more the chief songwriter. |
| Costa86 06.07.2015 06:22 |
Some really good arguments and considerations here, which show that a short answer isn't adequate for the original question. In my opinion, however, Freddie was always going to be big - somehow, he would have become famous. He just had that much talent. He himself said that even if he lost all of his millions suddenly, he'd find a way of making them again. The man knew he was going to be huge. He had that rare kind of innate sparkle which most people don't have. So I think he was the most essential member. People always loved Freddie the most. The other three I'd say were equally important in general terms, but not all equally important in musical terms. Roger was very important for his hit writing skills, Brian for his writing and guitar skills in general, and John for his marketing etc. skills. I think they could have been Queen without John though. They wouldn't have been as successful without Brian or Roger however. So Freddie was most essential, followed by Brian and Roger on an equal footing, and then John. |
| noorie 06.07.2015 13:30 |
You mention 'Queen', people immediately respond with 'Freddie Mercury'! So in my opinion, while all 4 members were essential for the success of the band, for the music they created, they were far from equal in terms of star quality. |
| Costa86 06.07.2015 15:26 |
^Some of that has to do with Freddie being the only one who died young, and was thus immortalised. But most of it is indeed connected to Freddie's immense 'star quality'. He's in the league of the greats, like Presley, Sinatra (arguably not a great musician, but had a lot of star quality), Lennon, Jackson... he's on a different level than Brian, Roger and John. |
| Sebastian 06.07.2015 18:24 |
I wonder if Brian's as annoyed as McCartney about the way Freddie (and Lennon, respectively) became 'elevated' in the public consciousness because of dying. Having said that, back when Freddie was still alive, he already had tremendous support from the fans and he'd earned a lot of respect for his musicality. It's not like he died and people just discovered he was that good. Some critics did, yeah, but the majority knew that all along. |
| Martin Packer 07.07.2015 03:14 |
The difference is Brian hadn't fallen out with Freddie - and Paul had with John. |
| miraclesteinway 07.07.2015 04:35 |
Back to the original question - were they all essential? Anotherone bites the dust, I want to break free - two massive hits from John Deacon We Will Rock You, The Show Must Go On - one massive hit and one important song from Brian A Kind of Magic, Radio Gaga - two massive hits from Roger Bohemian Rhapsody, We Are The Champions - two massive hits from Freddie. As songwriters they were all essential, I think. As temperaments they were all essential - Freddie the massive creative force, Brian the detailed brain, Roger the rock force, John the pop sensibilities and the business head. It's true that different members seemed to have more input at different times, but I think it really was that all four of them contributed fairly equally. Freddie's Mr Bad Guy showed that he had a lot of creativity but not a lot of discipline. His work with Montserrat and Mike Moran was much better. Brian's solo projects are decent but very bogged down in detail at some points Roger's solo projects are, well, sometimes I think they are great, and other times I think they are a bit raw and wandering. I don't know anything about that Biggles thing John did. I haven't heard it. But you get the idea of what I'm trying to say. Yeah, they were all needed. |
| miraclesteinway 07.07.2015 04:37 |
I am listening to the Immortals now. It's not so good, but it does sound like the transition between Magic and the Miracle... |
| raucousmonster 12.07.2015 16:53 |
I think Freddie and Brian together would have found success in a band together without the other two. Musically at least. Roger brought that wonderful backing and harmony vocal plus the right sort of personality, the glue as a previous post called it, to keep those two together when the stresses of their different approaches became too much for each other to bear. Take Freddie out and you get Smile with a different lead singer. Good but without a good dose of luck it's not good enough.Take Roger out and it works for a while but maybe crumbles when Freddie and Brian come to blows by the late seventies! Take Brian out and you lose much of the detail and texture that contributed to the unique and successful Queen sound. It becomes the Freddie Mercury Band as Roger wasn't strong enough in the early days to contribute as much as Freddie. Hell even in the later days some of Roger's lyrics are embarrassing. Roger's songs often needed Freddie's input to take them to the next level (eg. Kind of Magic, Radio Ga Ga). Same for John actually. Another One Bites The Dust doesn't happen without Freddie as its champion and replace Fred's incredible vocal on I Want To Break Free with anyone elses and it ends up sounding pretty naff. Especially with that weird sounding solo.... if Queen hadn't happened Freddie would have found some way of creating a vehicle for his talents and would have had a successful musical career. Brian would probably have been a very successful career guitarist in one or more of the many heavy rock bands of the seventies and beyond. Beloved and respected by fans and rock critics in the way guys like Ritchie Blackmore and Tony Iommi might be for example. Same goes for Roger on the drums for a rock band. I think John could have landed a decent pop band but without decent vocals of his own or much encouragement from another band member his contribution would not have been enough to find success. He was very lucky to find a band like Queen which suited his personality and offered enough musical flexibility and encouragement to allow his talents to flourish. |
| hobbit in Rhye 13.07.2015 12:33 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: My two cents: What makes Queen great is the chemistry between four different members. Each contributed to the overall sound that we recognize as "real Queen", but it is difficult to pinpoint what and how much each member contributed, and to what extent they influenced and modified each other's musical behaviour. Having said that, I do have a couple of observations, but they are not free from subjective notions. Freddie Mercury needed a counterbalance in the form of one or more other competent, creative musicians who did not greatly defer to him or were afraid to go against him but who did appreciate his talents and understand his quirks. When he went his own way entirely, his music lacked focus and sometimes became sloppy and lazy - he seemed a bit cavalier about what he did. Brian, John and Roger (I think in that order, in this particular case) would probably have been very important to allow Freddie Mercury to shine in this way. Brian May, on the other hand, needed, I think, the occasional "let's go already!"-push when he was about to get bogged down in details and nudges out of his musical comfort zone to avoid ending up doing the same thing over and over again, slowly improving on it, but also getting really boring for anyone who wasn't him. I think he needed Freddie more than he needed John in this sense, though I think Roger was probably also pretty instrumental there. Roger Taylor made sure the others didn't forget they were in a rock 'n roll band. That doesn't mean they should stick to the straight-up stuff, after all he brought a fairly unique way of playing to Queen, but everything had to be firmly rooted in that rock 'n roll tradition. When things were veering off too far into musical theatre, pseudo-opera or disco/funk, he generally pulled them into a more rock-oriented direction, but I get the impression that he either went back on that or didn't get his way from about '82-'86. John Deacon is to some extent an enigma. I'm pretty sure he understood the practical side of amplification better than anyone, even Brian, and that was of course an important part of what Queen's sound was (his pre-amp...) and his bass playing is original and solid, but I also get the impression that John was the most musically flexible and adaptable of the four. He was also, probably, the least rock 'n roll-oriented in the group, and that would certainly have encouraged Freddie, Brian and to a lesser extent Roger to stray further from the rock 'n roll foundations. I think John could've been a great success with any number of other bands, and I also think that he would have been recognized as an essential part of any band's success in retrospect, but I'm not sure any band other than Queen would have recognized him for what he was worth from the start, and in fact I'm not sure if the other three members of Queen knew fairly early on how lucky they were with John, or if it only began to dawn on them several years later. I find it very hard to, in a reasoned way, imagine how each of their musical careers could have looked without the other three guys. I think Freddie Mercury would have had little trouble finding a band that would appreciate his voice, but I don't know what sort of music he would've made, and how ambitious he would have been. He might well have gotten complacent or he might've been pushed out of the way by a lead guitarist with a very strong personality. Brian, although a great guitarist, is far from a typical one. I don't think he'd have had an easy time finding a band that complemented his sound and approach. I don't think John Deacon would have had any trouble finding a band and being a valuable addition to it, but I'm not sure if he'd have actively pursued a full-time musical career. I can totally picture him as a very happy and totally competent studio engineer who contributed the occasional awesome bass line. Roger Taylor, finally, is the one I think could most easily have been a succesful drummer in another band, PROVIDING he had the luck to join a band that had top-rate songwriters and excellent instrumentalists and vocalist(s), as he could not have managed on his own. Much of this is probably fairly obvious, and most of the rest is probably fairly speculative and subjective.Excellent post. I agree with most of your points. For me it's the combination of Queen that makes it unique. Each member, however talent he might be, is "only" one of the greatest singers out there, or one of the greatest guitarists etc. The alignment of these 4 brings out the best within them. It's like in cryptography: it's the combination, not the individuals, that makes it hard to decrypted. But there were indeed many good arguments in this thread about how much each member of the band has contributed. I don't agree with Costa86 though about "Freddie was always going to be big - somehow... He just had that much talent". Talent doesn't work like that. We know several genius in history that died before people recognised them. Talent is not just a born gift, it's rather a potential that needs an environment to develop. In Freddie's case, it's the creative push and appreciation from Brian and other members (but mostly Brian), as thomasquinn said, that made his potential flourish. |
| Sebastian 13.07.2015 22:41 |
hobbit in Rhye wrote: For me it's the combination of Queen that makes it unique.Of course, that's never been denied. Not just the four members, but also they would've sounded radically different with different producers, engineers, roadies, etc. To say that John, for instance, was not the most essential member is not the same as claiming he was irrelevant, replaceable or unimportant. All of them were important, essential, relevant, irreplaceable ... but probably not in mathematically-exact equal amounts. |
| The Real Wizard 16.07.2015 07:29 |
hobbit in Rhye wrote: I don't agree with Costa86 though about "Freddie was always going to be big - somehow... He just had that much talent". Talent doesn't work like that. We know several genius in history that died before people recognised them. Talent is not just a born gift, it's rather a potential that needs an environment to develop. In Freddie's case, it's the creative push and appreciation from Brian and other members (but mostly Brian), as thomasquinn said, that made his potential flourish.100% correct. Listen to Freddie's band from 1969 - granted, we haven't heard a lot, but what we've heard is pretty awful. Smile, on the other hand, had much of the Queen sound developed in 1969. It took the marriage of their sound to Freddie's ideas that the entire thing took off. And having Deacon not only as bassist but as the electronics and business smarts guy rounded things out. They were truly a collective. Every note we hear from 1974-77 is the creative peak of this combination of people painting on a single canvas, with no goal other than creating great music. This era of the band is a truly wonderful thing that would never be replicated. |
| Saint Jiub 16.07.2015 08:55 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Every note we hear from 1974-77 is the creative peak of this combination of people painting on a single canvas, with no goal other than creating great music. This era of the band is a truly wonderful thing that would never be replicated.In my opinion, the "back to basics" News of the World album(released in late 77) should not be considered part of this 74-77 creative peak. |
| Sebastian 16.07.2015 09:15 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Listen to Freddie's band from 1969 ... Smile, on the other hand ...While I agree in principle, you've got to consider that Ibex's recordings were home ones, Smile's were done at a professional recording studio, with a top progressive producer, some really excellent engineers, etc. I'm not denying there was a lot of the Queen sound in Smile already, but the comparison's neither on equal footing nor long-term precise, as we cannot possibly know what would've happened had they never met. Theorising is fun, of course, so go for it! Had Travolta kicked it in 1979, he probably would've been remembered as a music superstar. Since he's survived at least 36 years more than that, there's been enough time for his acting career to eclipse his shrinking music projects and if he died today, the overwhelming majority of people would remember him as an actor or as the man who mispronounced Idina Menzel's name as Adele Dazeem. So who knows? Maybe Smile could've grown to be the biggest band in the world ... or maybe they would've disbanded in 1970 (which is exactly what happened). Maybe Wreckage would've been on the same league as Led Zeppelin, maybe they would've been far closer to the average pub band playing a couple of Zeppelin covers (which is basically what they were). For the comparison to be fairer, we should listen to what Smile were doing when they were as raw as Ibex ... or we should see what Ibex would've accomplished with access to 16-track studios, top producers, top equipment and top engineers. That, also, would be fun to hypothesise. Panchgani wrote: In my opinion, the "back to basics" News of the World album(released in late 77) should not be considered part of this 74-77 creative peak.I disagree. The fact it's 'back to basics' doesn't take away from its creativity. It's not easy at all to be that concise and at the same time retain their cleverness, or even rise above it. 'We Are the Champions' has enough sophistication and subtlety to compete with the likes of 'Black Queen' and 'Master-Stroke'. Granted, it hasn't got the loud shrieks and the hippie panning effects that get so many people to basically ejaculate in excitement, but it doesn't mean it didn't take as much skill and/or work as those two. Same if we compare 'All Dead' to 'Prophet's Song': shorter, less 'peculiar' and arguably less epic, but wow, what a wonderful work of art; so much attention to detail, so much craftsmanship; it might not have that 'canon' that which thousands of fans worship, but the guitar bit in the middle is just as beautiful and 'compositionally-advanced.' Brian managed to put all those elements onto a shorter track which was at the same time more memorable and easier to relate to. That is as much a creative peak as whatever they did in the write-about-fairies-abuse-the-delay-shriek-like-a-velociraptor era, which was also quite extraordinary in its own way. I'd make my case for 'Jazz' to be included on that golden era as well. Maybe production was sub-par, but there's some top songwriting and performing there. |
| Sebastian 06.12.2015 08:44 |
Bumped. |
| noorie 06.12.2015 16:35 |
I just have one thing to say. It has been 24 years since Freddie died, and Queen has not been able to come up with one entirely new and original album as 'Queen'. In 24 years! (The only noteworthy item - No One but You.) |
| Vocal harmony 07.12.2015 06:20 |
noorie wrote: I just have one thing to say. It has been 24 years since Freddie died, and Queen has not been able to come up with one entirely new and original album as 'Queen'. In 24 years! (The only noteworthy item - No One but You.)Well by the end of the 70's they weren't producing entirely original albums! From then on a small number of songs reflected past glories, and an even smaller number trod new paths. The argument that they haven't produced anything original in the last 24 years could be used to prove that with two members missing they did indeed rely on each member as a true collective of talent. |
| Sebastian 25.06.2016 08:35 |
Bumped. |
| mooghead 25.06.2016 10:36 |
You keep bumping into things. |
| Sebastian 25.06.2016 10:44 |
True. |
| Oscar J 25.06.2016 13:50 |
Freddie was a bit more important than the others, Brian the second most important member. Roger and John were also important, but one of them could have been replaced by some other skilled musician, and the band may still have gone on to be successful. Queen wouldn't have been the same of course, but still successful. I think it's a 35/30/20/15 (F/B/R/J) split in importance or something like that. Maybe a tad more even, but there's no way that they just by coincidence happened to be exactly equal and contribute by the exact same amount to the bands success. It's a nice thought, but not realistic IMO. This is all from a musical point of view. Maybe John was very important in handling their economy etc. etc. and it'd all have been impossible without him. I also agree that much of Jazz belongs to their absolute best work. Bicycle Race is such an understated work of art for example. The problem is that there are some absolute stinkers by Roger on there, and the production kinda ruins some of the ballads (Jealousy, Leaving Home). |
| mooghead 25.06.2016 14:34 |
"but one of them could have been replaced by some other skilled musician," Fuck off. People put John '4th' but he wrote Queen's biggest ever hit and thus made them the biggest band in the world. Did it lead to Hot Space, the worst album? Maybe, but they all played an intrinsic part of their history. "Were all four members really equal and essential?".. Yes.. to being Queen, if anyone else was part of the four then it wouldn't be the Queen we all know. |
| mvdk 26.06.2016 09:56 |
I think that only the combination of those 4 individuals makes the sound of Queen we all love. Take a look at Freddie solo: well... not that imposing. (Ok, Barcelona is quite marvelous, thanks mostly to Mike Moran and the brilliance of the idea to combine opera and pop/rock.) Roger solo? The Cross is ok, but not that special. And his solo-albums are solid, but nothing to be enthusiastic about. Brian solo? I think that he wants to sound like Queen the most, but in the end you think, I still miss something. At least, I did. John never did any serious solo stuff (Except Man in the shadows, which is brilliant, by the way), but you have to judge him only in his Queen-work. So the four of them individual... I honestly think that they won't had success on their own. But together is a complete different story: You have the voice, the mystic lyrics, the out-of-the-box-ideas and vision of Freddie, the bombastic guitar layers and romantic melodies of Brian, the groove and rock&roll of Roger with his high-singing notes and the subtlety and flexibility of Johns bass-lines (especially the higher parts of his playing, wow, incomparably!) and there you have it! It's a kind of magic.... |
| Sebastian 26.06.2016 10:03 |
I think nobody's denied that Queen as we know it needed all four of them (plus engineers, producers, roadies, etc., had one of them changed, it'd be a different story however slightly). That's crystal clear. So half of the topic is answered there: were they all essential? Yes, of course. However ... were the four of them *equal*? Now that's a different story. |