| RETROLOVE 15.09.2007 18:48 |
I thought so...Some people call them hard rock, or Glam rock, I thought they were progressive rock?? Any Comments? |
| QueenMercury46 15.09.2007 19:34 |
RETROLOVE<h6>The Black Queen wrote: I thought so...Some people call them hard rock, or Glam rock, I thought they were progressive rock?? Any Comments?Queen cannot be categorized as one kind of genre. This subject has been discussed many times. |
| ScaramoucheFandango 15.09.2007 21:48 |
Freddie once said that he believed they fit into every genre because their songs were so different from ether. |
| ok.computer 15.09.2007 23:07 |
They were very progressive. They used unleaded fuel in their cars years before anyone else. Also, they were instrumental in the Fairtrade movement. I believe they anticipated the downfall of apartheid many years before it happened too. |
| goinback 15.09.2007 23:16 |
Queen II could qualify as a prog rock IMHO, as well as other songs like The Prophet's Song. But a lot of things they did weren't progressive. |
| steven 35638 15.09.2007 23:39 |
There is no doubt in my mind that Queen were in a class of their own. |
| thomasquinn 32989 16.09.2007 06:20 |
QueenMercury46 wrote: Queen cannot be categorized as one kind of genre. This subject has been discussed many times. <font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: There is no doubt in my mind that Queen were in a class of their own.Oi! You two! Get your stepford heads out of your asses and read the question. This is not about quality, this is not about superceding genres, it is quite simply a question as to whether to file Queen under "prog rock" or whatever. |
| i'm going slight mad... 16.09.2007 07:48 |
I reckon a lot of their early stuff could be put into the progressive rock genre, yes. by the 80's their stuff was more poppy. |
| steven 35638 16.09.2007 08:29 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Yes, and I file them under "class of their own."QueenMercury46 wrote: Queen cannot be categorized as one kind of genre. This subject has been discussed many times.<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: There is no doubt in my mind that Queen were in a class of their own.Oi! You two! Get your stepford heads out of your asses and read the question. This is not about quality, this is not about superceding genres, it is quite simply a question as to whether to file Queen under "prog rock" or whatever. |
| Sebastian 16.09.2007 08:44 |
I don't think 'II' is a progressive album. Surely 'Father To Son' and perhaps 'Masterstroke' and 'Black Queen' are prog, but the remaining 70% of the album isn't. |
| Leaky Luke 16.09.2007 09:32 |
Queen is just another classic rock band with several other influences. |
| Raf 16.09.2007 09:43 |
Like some people above said, they made *some* progressive rock stuff, but not a full album or anything. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from Queen to ADATR, and then again on Innuendo, we can find some progressive songs, right? |
| The Fairy King 16.09.2007 09:50 |
They could emulate a lot of styles and genres, yes. Doesn't make them prog though, maybe the odd track here and there. |
| Ms. Rebel 16.09.2007 10:52 |
<font color="FF66FF">ScaramoucheFandango wrote: Freddie once said that he believed they fit into every genre because their songs were so different from ether.That's right. |
| Tero 16.09.2007 14:00 |
By some of the loosest definitions of "progressive rock", songs like March of the Black Queen or Bohemian Rhapsody could be classed as progressive songs, but in my opinion it would be much more accurate to describe them as a collection of "standard" rock tunes glued together. |
| goinback 16.09.2007 16:18 |
I guess the reason Queen II seems prog to me is because Side Black could qualify as a loose concept album. |
| Russian Headlong 16.09.2007 18:22 |
In a nutshell, a Hard Rock band who liked to experiment. Some of the 80'S stuff was pop pap I'm sorry to say! |
| FriedChicken 17.09.2007 05:52 |
goinback wrote: I guess the reason Queen II seems prog to me is because Side Black could qualify as a loose concept album.Just because songs segue into each other doesn't make it concept. A concept album has an overall theme (or story) and recurring musical patterns. Queen II isn't a concept album. Not even the black side. Also Sgt Peppers isn't a concept album. Listen to stuff like "Tommy" or "The lamb lies down on Broadway" |
| Pim Derks 17.09.2007 07:40 |
Es Lammeth Liegeth Neer Op Den Breede Weghe _O_ |
| FriedChicken 17.09.2007 07:55 |
Oh man _O_ Wat een helden die Pim & Niek :D |
| Sebastian 17.09.2007 08:50 |
> A concept album has an overall theme (or story) and recurring musical patterns Actually, according to that, 'II' is indeed a concept album. The theme is represented by black and white sides, and the recurring musical patterns can be found too: 'Procession' takes some lines off 'Father to Son' and re-arranges them (Brian would use the same trick for 'Races Overture' and 'White Man'), 'Black Queen' foreshadows the motif from 'Funny' (during the climax). Certain details such as "rule with my left hand" bit in 'Black Queen' and the harpsichord solo in 'Masterstroke' being mostly done over one same chord ("i" function in both cases) is a cross-reference as well. So, in that matter, 'Queen II' is just as conceptual as 'Dark Side of the Moon' (they both even begin with a heartbeat-like fade in). Same for 'Sgt Pepper' (reprising the title theme, introducing all those sorts of characters). But still, being "concept" (which is, as you can see, an entirely arbitrary connotation) doesn't mean it's "progressive". Queen had less than 10 songs (out of 150+) which could be loosely classified as "prog-rock", so it's incorrect to pigeonhole them as a progressive band. Likewise, the fact they did 30 seconds of opera in 'Bo Rhap' and a minute in the 'Lap' intro doesn't mean they mixed opera-rock: the remaining 99% of their catalogue doesn't fit into that category (98% if you count 'The Kiss' as opera influenced, which I do not). |
| bigV 17.09.2007 09:24 |
I've always counted "Made In Heaven" as a concept album. The theme(s) being: the beginning and the end of life; the joys and sorrows of love; the infinite beauty and the infinite sadness of the world etc. In that respect it's very much like "Queen II" in that it jumps from black to white from one song to the next. V. |
| Pim Derks 17.09.2007 09:43 |
Sebastian wrote: Certain details such as "rule with my left hand" bit in 'Black Queen' and the harpsichord solo in 'Masterstroke' being mostly done over one same chord ("i" function in both cases) is a cross-reference as well.Don't forget that Father to Son and Funny How Love Is both start with an F. |
| Sebastian 17.09.2007 11:11 |
Indeed. |
| Danne 17.09.2007 15:27 |
Sebastian wrote: Queen had less than 10 songs (out of 150+) which could be loosely classified as "prog-rock", so it's incorrect to pigeonhole them as a progressive band.Yes, but so is pigeonholing them in other genres as well. Certain aspects of Queen's music does clearly belong to the progressive movement, certain aspects don't. Actually, I started writing a thesis (or paper, don't really know the technical terminology in English; "C-uppsats" in Swedish) about Queen's music, where I argued that Queen, in many ways, weren't "art rock" (where they've been placed many times). Likewise, the fact they did 30 seconds of opera in 'Bo Rhap' and a minute in the 'Lap' intro doesn't mean they mixed opera-rock: the remaining 99% of their catalogue doesn't fit into that category (98% if you count 'The Kiss' as opera influenced, which I do not).Don't forget the 'Pagliacci' quote in 'Breakthrough' and the Wagner quotation in 'The Wedding March'. And the Barcelona album certainly qualifies as "opera/rock" (whatever that is). |
| The Real Wizard 17.09.2007 16:52 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Best post of the thread.QueenMercury46 wrote: Queen cannot be categorized as one kind of genre. This subject has been discussed many times.<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: There is no doubt in my mind that Queen were in a class of their own.Oi! You two! Get your stepford heads out of your asses and read the question. This is not about quality, this is not about superceding genres, it is quite simply a question as to whether to file Queen under "prog rock" or whatever. Simple answer: Yes they were, for a brief while. Queen II is as close as they got to prog, but by Sheer Heart Attack, they combined their early sound with a pop sensibility... then found their niche by ANATO. |
| FriedChicken 17.09.2007 17:20 |
" Certain details such as "rule with my left hand" bit in 'Black Queen' and the harpsichord solo in 'Masterstroke' being mostly done over one same chord ("i" function in both cases) is a cross-reference as well." If the same chord progressions would mean it's a concept album then most of the early Rock 'n Roll albums would be concept. I don't think a Black and a White side is a concept. It's just the same as A / B but named different. There are some things that indeed come close to being concept. Like the Procession/Father to Son bit you mentioned. But other than that I can't think of anything else. A real concept album has a recurring theme. And a recurring theme isn't just a few notes appearing in the next song (like that 'father to father to son' bit in Procession) |
| Sebastian 17.09.2007 18:22 |
If so, then 'Dark Side' isn't a concept album either (reprising 'Breathe' isn't enough IMO). Anyway, as I said, the label is subjective: you could interpret 'Opera', for instance, as having a recurring theme: a person who wants revenge ('Two Legs') and eventually executes it ('Bo Rhap'), enjoys driving, biking... is in love with his best friend, a sweet lady who's the love of his life, but after killing a man and listening to a mad man he's got to go join the brave men who went to look for resources somewhere else, and when he comes back his lovely girl has died already. And the order could mean the timeline swerves from present to past (for instance, when he went back at the end of '39 he realises his wife grew old died, so half an hour later he remembers that in 'Love Of My Life' he'd promised her to come back when he grew older he'd be there at her side to remind her how he still loved her). Well, you get the picture: you can find any sort of meaning you want there. It's as ambiguous and vague as the idea of 'Dark Side' being about problems of modern life or whatever. Plus there are things in 'Opera' (and 'Races') you could read as recurring themes, either lyrical or musical. Same for 'Jazz' (interpreting the title as "random", not as the genre per se), 'Works', 'Miracle' or 'Innuendo', and of course 'Made in Heaven' as it's been said here. All in all whether the albums are concept or not depends on the way a particular person wants to receive the message (if any). The error is (IMO) in those people who kneel and worship any self-called concept album just for the sake of it. |
| FriedChicken 17.09.2007 20:58 |
It's not really that vague. Compare so called concept albums (I don't know Dark Side of the Moon very well since I only like the first couple of Pink Floyd albums) but real concept albums have a story to it. Like Tommy (The Who). It's very clear that it has an overall theme to it, musically and storywise. And not something you have to have a huge imagination for, like your example with A Night at the Opera. Cause that way you can find a bigger picture to all the songs every written. And you can even make a concept of all the bands put together if you would have enough spare time. There aren't really rules when something is a concept album or not, but it's very obvious that Queen never did one. Although some songs come close |
| Boy Thomas Raker 17.09.2007 21:11 |
Stretching things a bit, thematically there's no consistency to the white and black sides to Queen II. If white were "goodness and light", and black were "darkness and evil", then you could say there was a concept. But Loser in the End isn't really fitting for side white, and Funny how love is isn't fitting for side black, so that theory goes to hell quickly. Or side white could be the "reality" side, black "fantasy", but again, a few songs don't fit that. I think it was strictly a device to separate the sides. If it were side A and side B, I doubt that any one would refer to it as a concept album. |
| The Real Wizard 18.09.2007 00:45 |
How about we begin by having a consensus of the definition of a concept album... ? |
| Pim Derks 18.09.2007 01:25 |
Sebastian wrote: If so, then 'Dark Side' isn't a concept album either (reprising 'Breathe' isn't enough IMO).As far as I know Dark Side of the Moon was developed as one piece. Queen II wasn't: White Queen was from 1968, Seven Seas of Rhye had already appeared (in a different version) on the first album etc. Besides that - Dark Side has more elements that make it a concept album. The talking in between tracks. The starting and ending with a heartbeat. An overall theme, quoting from Wikipedia: "The Dark Side of the Moon deals conceptually with the pressures of modern life that can drive normal human beings to insanity: materialism, the increased pace of life and travel, the encroachment of old age and death, and the inhumanities of society and armed conflict. These themes are not just delivered by words but are suggested with the sounds of the album." |
| Sebastian 18.09.2007 07:59 |
Pim Derks wrote:'Us and Them' also comes from long before. And then again, it's entirely arbitrary to put the entire project into one single concept. 'Tommy' is indeed much more cohesive (as well as musicals, 'Chess', for instance), but 'Dark Side' isn't actually more "concept" than 'Pepper' or even 'II'. Brian's solo albums could be considered "concept" depending on how we interpret them.Sebastian wrote: If so, then 'Dark Side' isn't a concept album either (reprising 'Breathe' isn't enough IMO).As far as I know Dark Side of the Moon was developed as one piece. Queen II wasn't: White Queen was from 1968, Seven Seas of Rhye had already appeared (in a different version) on the first album etc. |
| bigV 18.09.2007 08:29 |
Sebastian wrote:Nevertheless, even though Pink Floyd didn't invent the concept album genre, they certainly perfected it with "The Wall". That's probably the quintessential concept album and to my mind all other concept albums should be compared to it.Pim Derks wrote:'Us and Them' also comes from long before. And then again, it's entirely arbitrary to put the entire project into one single concept. 'Tommy' is indeed much more cohesive (as well as musicals, 'Chess', for instance), but 'Dark Side' isn't actually more "concept" than 'Pepper' or even 'II'. Brian's solo albums could be considered "concept" depending on how we interpret them.Sebastian wrote: If so, then 'Dark Side' isn't a concept album either (reprising 'Breathe' isn't enough IMO).As far as I know Dark Side of the Moon was developed as one piece. Queen II wasn't: White Queen was from 1968, Seven Seas of Rhye had already appeared (in a different version) on the first album etc. V. |
| Danne 18.09.2007 14:27 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: It's not really that vague. Compare so called concept albums (I don't know Dark Side of the Moon very well since I only like the first couple of Pink Floyd albums) but real concept albums have a story to it. Like Tommy (The Who).Tommy is not a concept album, it's a rock opera. If you define Tommy as a concept album, then the original cast recording of, say, "Whistle Down the Wind" is too. |
| FriedChicken 18.09.2007 16:24 |
I think the first 5 Beatles albums were concept albums, since all the songs are about love Also all the Scorpions albums are concept, cause all the songs on there suck in the same way |
| Sebastian 19.09.2007 07:42 |
Don't forget that ACDC's entire catalogue is concept too: it's all the same bloody song over and over again ;) |
| bigV 19.09.2007 08:11 |
Regarding concept albums: link Very interesting stuff. V. |
| ok.computer 19.09.2007 19:12 |
Danne wrote:Sorry to go a bit off-topic here. I just wanted to bring in one part from Wiki regarding Tommy.FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: It's not really that vague. Compare so called concept albums (I don't know Dark Side of the Moon very well since I only like the first couple of Pink Floyd albums) but real concept albums have a story to it. Like Tommy (The Who).Tommy is not a concept album, it's a rock opera. If you define Tommy as a concept album, then the original cast recording of, say, "Whistle Down the Wind" is too. "...and it took the idea of thematically based albums to a much higher appreciation by both critics and the public. It was also the first story-based concept album of the rock era (as distinct from the song-cycle style album) to enjoy commercial success." I think this is half-right. I don't look at Tommy as a concept album at all, as it does above, but I *would* agree with the notion of it being a "thematically-based album" - story-based, if you would. There IS a difference. For a start, I would argue that the latter is much more accessible...much less oblique. Would one consider Sinatra's "In the Wee Small Hours" a concept album - Wiki and several other sources DO, but again, I don't think it is. It's thematically-based - based on the theme of lost love and Sinatra's own problems with Ava. BTW, I never liked the phrase "rock-opera". I always felt it to be a cheap title that Kit Lambert thought up to try and make something much more inaccessible and grandiose than it actually is/was. With regard to Queen, I don't think they ever had anything approaching a concept album - certainly not in the context of The Who's proposed "Lifehouse" (which was the basis of Who's Next), or the work of YES or Rush. Maybe elements of Made in Heaven? But certainly not the whole package. Anyway, that's just my tuppence worth - I just would agree that the whole notion of "what's concept and what's not" needs to be re-examined. |
| Tero 20.09.2007 00:00 |
Has "concept album" become a term which is completely interchangeable with "progressive rock", or have I just lost a part of this discussion? Does this now mean that Genesis has done only one progressive rock album? :/ |
| goinback 20.09.2007 16:51 |
Rock operas include Tommy, Quadrophenia, The Wall, even Kilroy Was here...they have a story. Concept albums on the other hand have a general theme. (I supposed all rock operas could be considered concept albums, but not all concept albums are rock operas.) And no prog isn't synonomous with concept albums but many prog bands seem to do that. |
| The Real Wizard 26.09.2007 01:04 |
Tero wrote: Has "concept album" become a term which is completely interchangeable with "progressive rock", or have I just lost a part of this discussion? Does this now mean that Genesis has done only one progressive rock album? :/Oh no, certainly not. Although it just seems that select people are not differentiating between the two terms, the simple explanation is "sarcasm". :) |
| john bodega 26.09.2007 05:19 |
Queen were a jazz band, get over yourselves. They even named an album after it. |
| brENsKi 26.09.2007 07:04 |
goinback wrote: Rock operas include Tommy, Quadrophenia, The Wall, even Kilroy Was here...they have a story. Concept albums on the other hand have a general theme. (I supposed all rock operas could be considered concept albums, but not all concept albums are rock operas.) And no prog isn't synonomous with concept albums but many prog bands seem to do that.i would add a couple of albums to the concept album list....Bat Out Of Hell and maybe Boston's Walk On - mainly the feel and flow of an album dictates whether it is a concept....the Beatles Sg Pepper is widely accepted as the first concept album, but Macca and Lennon both said it wasn't....i think in the ears of the listener it's all about the feel and flow |
| Leaky Luke 02.10.2007 22:30 |
I wonder why no-one mentioned Pink Floyd's The Wall as concept album... |
| FriedChicken 03.10.2007 08:44 |
Can someone explain to me why Sgt Peppers is considered as a concept album. Cause to me it has nothing to do with concept albums at all. The original idea was to have a Lonely Hearts Club band sing the songs, and the only thing left from this original idea are the Sgt Peppers song and the Billy Shears thing right before With a little Help. It's just a couple of great songs put together, in my opinion |
| Sebastian 03.10.2007 14:19 |
People tend to loosely put labels on anything: they say "concept" if the album's got segues, "sell-out" if the album's got synths, and "a band that mixes opera and rock" for a band that only had one minute of opera+rock in a 6K+ minute-long catalogue (i.e. less than 0.02%) |
| FriedChicken 03.10.2007 21:55 |
Yeah you're right, it's easier to label things |
| steven 35638 04.10.2007 00:26 |
Sebastian wrote: People tend to loosely put labels on anything: they say "concept" if the album's got segues, "sell-out" if the album's got synths, and "a band that mixes opera and rock" for a band that only had one minute of opera+rock in a 6K+ minute-long catalogue (i.e. less than 0.02%)Haha, great point! However, let's not forget Freddie Mercury sang baritone with Montserrat Caballe. In my humble opinion that should be taken into account when discussing Queen as an 'opera+rock' artist. It doesn't matter if he was solo, his behavior and actions reflect that of Queen, and vice versa. That's the thing about Queen, they knew how to experiment. There's absolutely no way to categorize them. If anything, and I doubt this is even an appropriate title, you could call Queen an experimental rock group. They liked to get a taste of different genres, even if it's non-rock oriented. |
| dont try suicide 04.10.2007 05:10 |
they were a popular musical group. 65% of the material they wrote was pop music. |
| FriedChicken 04.10.2007 10:12 |
Thats why I don't understand why people compare Mika and The Darkness to Freddie, cause Freddie rarely used ridiculously high falsetto in his lead vocals |
| steven 35638 04.10.2007 11:37 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: Thats why I don't understand why people compare Mika and The Darkness to Freddie, cause Freddie rarely used ridiculously high falsetto in his lead vocalsI think it's more visual than anything else, and as for The Darkness it's the guitar riffs that remind us of Queen. Not Justin Hawkin's vocal abilities, or lack there of. It's foolish and non-comprehending as to how somebody could campare the power and ultra diversity of Mercury's voice with the squeeling of a heroine addicted, lost, and incoherent rocker. I like Hawkins, due to his unique behavior and catchy melodies, but I would never say he's the next Mercury. I think I heard a guitar riff in one of their songs that was based off of one of the riffs in Now I'm Here. I didn't really care that they used a Queen riff, because eventually there will be no more guitar riffs that are new! We're always writing songs that resemble that of a previous artist, God knows it happens to me! I recall writing one song that was of a classical nature and thought "damn, this is some great stuff, the best I've ever written!" However, ten minutes later I thought "shit, I heard this before." It's bound to happen to every artist and I refuse to believe anybody these days is a true original. And by original I do mean somebody who actually has orignal ideas, stuff that doesn't resemble the past or replicate the past. |
| john bodega 05.10.2007 00:44 |
In an unreleased Pete Townshend song called "How Can I Help You Sir?", he accidentally paraphrases Ennio Morricone's theme from "The Mission". As he says in his little video in the studio; "If you love a song, then you will wind up playing it". And he's absolutely right there, it just happens sometimes. I really don't mind similarities between songs because I'm always segueing them in my head anyhow. Self plagiarism is another thing that doesn't irk me much. Anyone ever notice how the verses of "Love of My Life" and "Bohemian Rhapsody" are basically the same thing!?? To me that's not really a problem.... it was just the music that was coming out of Freddie's head at that time, I don't think it diminishes him. The only kind of plagiarism that shits me is the Oasis kind. They started out as a pretty respectable band until they had a collective brain-fart of the Al Gore variety and thought they were the Beatles. That's almost as bad as U2 being mentioned in the same breath as The Who. |
| Sebastian 05.10.2007 08:17 |
> they were a popular musical group. 65% of the material they wrote was pop music. I'm not sure about the exact percentage, but indeed it'd be a nice idea to try to establish their "home" style. I think that'd be a toss-up between Bri's "hard-rock songs with harmonies" (at least one per album in almost every case) and Fred's piano ballads (at least one per album from 'II' to 'Magic'). > Thats why I don't understand why people compare Mika and The Darkness to Freddie, cause Freddie rarely used ridiculously high falsetto in his lead vocals Indeed. > I like Hawkins, due to his unique behavior and catchy melodies, but I would never say he's the next Mercury. To be fair, in some aspects he's above Mercury (e.g. guitar playing), although not in others. All in all, I hate the cunt (Justin, not Freddie), but I respect him as a marvellous musician, although not so much as a singer. > I think I heard a guitar riff in one of their songs that was based off of one of the riffs in Now I'm Here. Isn't NIH similar to a Stones' song or something? > I refuse to believe anybody these days is a true original. And by original I do mean somebody who actually has orignal ideas, stuff that doesn't resemble the past or replicate the past. For that matter, nobody's been original for over a hundred years. > The only kind of plagiarism that shits me is the Oasis kind. Or the Offspring kind, although it's nice to put 'Get a Job' and 'Obladi' together. |
| FriedChicken 05.10.2007 08:29 |
"because eventually there will be no more guitar riffs that are new!" Thats nonsense. I always like to compare notes to letters. There are 26 letters in the normal english alphabet (without the use of ö and á and accents like that). Just 26 letters. And about a quarter of the world population uses these 26 letters in lots of different languages. Just 26 letters for soooo many words. Just imagine the possibilities. You can arrange them the way you like and form new words. And with just these 26 letters new words are made up every day! And now... how many notes are there? Lets say there are about 90 notes you can use well (approximately the range of a piano) the special thing about these musical notes is that you can arrange them the way you want, like letters, but you can always stack them up to make chords. Now... The latin alphabet with it's 26 letters has been used for 2000 years. So there's like a million years when the possibilities run out |
| Sebastian 05.10.2007 14:37 |
Great post, Niek. |
| Rik&Roll 05.10.2007 17:51 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: "because eventually there will be no more guitar riffs that are new!" Thats nonsense. I always like to compare notes to letters. There are 26 letters in the normal english alphabet (without the use of ö and á and accents like that). Just 26 letters. And about a quarter of the world population uses these 26 letters in lots of different languages. Just 26 letters for soooo many words. Just imagine the possibilities. You can arrange them the way you like and form new words. And with just these 26 letters new words are made up every day! And now... how many notes are there? Lets say there are about 90 notes you can use well (approximately the range of a piano) the special thing about these musical notes is that you can arrange them the way you want, like letters, but you can always stack them up to make chords. Now... The latin alphabet with it's 26 letters has been used for 2000 years. So there's like a million years when the possibilities run outLet's put this even further: the genetic code of all living things are built from a genetic alphabet of (I think) just four letters. You could state that music really is larger than life ;) |
| ok.computer 06.10.2007 07:36 |
Zebonka12 wrote: In an unreleased Pete Townshend song called "How Can I Help You Sir?", [SNIP]Ehh?? What's the story behind that one, then..??? I haven't heard of it...how's that one slip under the radar..? |
| john bodega 07.10.2007 08:55 |
"And with just these 26 letters new words are made up every day!" A brilliant point sirrah : but not all of these words make sense, or are pleasant on the ear :) "Ehh?? What's the story behind that one, then..??? I haven't heard of it...how's that one slip under the radar..?" I dunno if the video is still on Youtube, but it was a song that was under consideration for the "Endless Wire" album. I actually quite like the song, not sure why they left it off to be honest. |
| Sebastian 07.10.2007 10:00 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "And with just these 26 letters new words are made up every day!" A brilliant point sirrah : but not all of these words make sense, or are pleasant on the ear :)Of course, but words form sentences, speeches, prayers, novels, plays, essays ... and those are indeed new, even if they may quote or paraphrase some other works. Shakespeare didn't invent the words "to", "be", "or" and "not", but he put them together on an interesting way (which may be regarded as nonsense by some, but still...). And also, consider riffs aren't only the notes per se, but the silences, the durations, etc... endless (or at least many many many many) possibilities out there! |
| Tero 07.10.2007 12:37 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: "because eventually there will be no more guitar riffs that are new!" Thats nonsense. I always like to compare notes to letters. There are 26 letters in the normal english alphabet (without the use of ö and á and accents like that). Just 26 letters. And about a quarter of the world population uses these 26 letters in lots of different languages. Just 26 letters for soooo many words. Just imagine the possibilities. You can arrange them the way you like and form new words. And with just these 26 letters new words are made up every day! And now... how many notes are there? Lets say there are about 90 notes you can use well (approximately the range of a piano) the special thing about these musical notes is that you can arrange them the way you want, like letters, but you can always stack them up to make chords. Now... The latin alphabet with it's 26 letters has been used for 2000 years. So there's like a million years when the possibilities run outThere could be a point in time when there are no more new guitar riffs to write, but it isn't yet. Just like there could be a time when all the words in every language were invented. (Of course the human race has been dead for billions of years before that would happen. :P ) But in fact your language analogy has opened up an entirely different line of thought: Even though there are (practically) limitless possibilities to invent new words in every language, people have found it much better to just borrow words from the other existing languages. Sometimes people have tried to artificially create new words into existing languages, but these just haven't taken up when other languages have had better words to use. Then there is of course the question of languages which are related to each other, and use much of the same vocabulary... It isn't intentional, but it just has evolved into that from a common ancestry. (To translate all that into musical terms) You can create absolutely new music by combining unusual notes in a new way (modern/abstract music), but you can't force people to enjoy the product. Most people will enjoy the kind of music they are already familiar with, and artists either intentionally or subconsciously exploiting that will get more recognition from the general population. It isn't a bad thing per se, but has led to the current type of situation where "musicians" are trying to use as much of the existing material as they possibly can to make money easier. There are possibilities of making entirely new music, but they just aren't being taken advantage of all the time. By today's standards "progressive music" is just about any music that isn't sampling a previous hit record. ;) |
| john bodega 08.10.2007 10:52 |
I like your style. Music is a kind of language/s in the end, and people will readily understand things they've heard before. It's why so many clichéd progressions refuse to die; because even if they are 'old hat', there's still life in the things yet, different ways for it to be performed or whatever..... Bleh! I dunno. |
| queenlover905 20.10.2007 22:57 |
The truth is... Queen is too immeasureable and amazingly infinite in their music to be tied down to a genre. I mean come on, Ogre Battle is regarded as the origins of thrash metal. Stone Cold Crazy, Death on Two Legs, and possibly Flick of the Wrist are considered heavy metal. Then there's Bring back that Leroy Brown of ragtime, all those ballads like LOML,you take my breath away, and teo torriate then the rockier stuff like I want it all, and all the early fantasy songs. And the arena rock of WWRY and WATC. and arabic style mustapha. But if you did have to pin them down and classify those virtuoso lads, then sure, why not? Let's go with prog. It's most fitting. ROCK ON QUEEN! yeah. |