QueenZone discussion #1063621

Another Roger (re) wrote: Alright. Let a few things be clear first: 1. Freddie Mercury had the most fantastic voice ever. 2. He was the greatest showman ever 3. He was a great composer in the 70s. Now then. According to a lot of people Freddie was Queen. Those of us who know Queen know better than that. But even in the Queenfan environment I find that Freddie Mercury is slightly overrated. Some tend to think he invented the Queen sound. I dont agree there. Freddie was a big fan of Smile before he became a member of the band that was going to be Queen later on. Those who have heard smiles harmonies will instantly hear the similarites. Doing alright, and April Lady are good examples. If Freddie was Queen, how come he didnt make Ibex or wreckage big stars? Simply because he didnt have any clever bandmembers to help him through. Freddie helped Brian and Roger too. He brought the show and camp to the band. Lets look at Queen1. Who wrote the songs? Keep yourself Alive - Brian May Doing Alright - Brian May/Staffel Son and Daughter - Brian May The Night Comes Down - Brian May Liar - Freddie Mercury Great King Rat - Freddie Mercury Jesus - Freddie Mercury My Fairy King - Freddie Mercury Seven seas doesnt count in Queen1. Only as an instruental... Modern Times - Roger Taylor I prefer Brian Mays tracks on Queen1. To me they are very solid. Freddie was cleary in a learning period as his songs were kinda experimental. But i dont think he succeed on Queen1. Except my Fairy King that is very good. Jesus I dont rate very highly I am afraid. Queen2 Freddie wrote: Fairy feller, Ogre Battle, Funny how love is, Seven Seas of Rhye, nevermore, march of the black Queen. Brian May: Father to son, White Queen, Some day one day. Freddie win on this one of course. His peak as a songwriter in my opinion. Brian May was solid as usual but contributed with less songs The 70s continue a little like this. Brian May and Freddie Mercury dominating the albums while Roger Taylor and John Deacon make one or two each. After Jazz something happens. Freddie gets lazy. He will never return to the capacity he had in the 70s. In the 80s Queen were saved by the other members. He had a few glimpses of quality with Its a hard life, The Miracle and Play the game. Other than that we got stuff like Body Language, Man on The Prowl, Stayin Power, Coolcat, Keep passing the open windows, Delilah etc. In my opinion quite weak stuff. Brian May, Roger Taylor and John Deacon rose to the occasion and saved Queen with some big singles. Without those I fear Queen would have been over a lot earlier. Brian May was in my opinion the most consistent writer in Queen. While Freddie had most creative and wild ideas you could always count on Brian. Freddie was too fond of the partylife in the 80s. I dont blame him. Freddie can take credit for a lot. But he certainly wasnt Queen alone. In that sense I would call him overrated by many.

bigV wrote: Am I being too harsh? Perhaps. But if you look at the singles the other bandmembers produced in the 80's you'll see that I'm right. Freddie lost something when he grew the 'tache. By saying that he was overrated I don't mean that he wasn't that great. I'm saying that Brian, Roger and John a greatly UNDERrated, and that goes double for Brian May, because as the topic starter said, he was the most consistent song-writer. He didn't write any No. 1 hits (unless you count that excuse for a single with 5ive), but he wrote a lot of good stuff and most of it memorable. V.

bigV wrote: And anyway, you've just proved my point. It's not that Freddie was overrated, it's that Brian, Roger and John were underrated. I just gave an example with Brian, because he's my favourite member of the band. Don't cling to minutiae. V.

Tero wrote:

bigV wrote: And anyway, you've just proved my point. It's not that Freddie was overrated, it's that Brian, Roger and John were underrated. I just gave an example with Brian, because he's my favourite member of the band. Don't cling to minutiae. V.

Actually... No. Your point was that Freddie was overrated in the 80's, while my point was that they were all similarily overrated in the 80's (or just as good as always, depending on your viewpoint.) You said Brian was consistent throughout the 70's and 80's unlike Freddie, and I pointed out they were both just as inconsistent. Please don't try to turn your Brian-lovefest into objective analysis of the band's writing capabilities. ;)

bigV wrote: I'm drunk too, but I'll take a shot at this, because I agree with all points in the initial post. Let's examine the singles written by Freddie in the 80's: 1980 Play The Game - A dull, predictable song. Freddie should've given it away to the Gibb brothers 1982 Body Language - Seriously? This from the man who wrote "Bohemian Rhapsody" and "Killer Queen"??? 1984 It's A Hard Life - If "Play the Game" wasn't torture enough, here comes the sequel. Lyrically it sounds more like a teen girl's poetry. 1986 Friends Will Be Friends - Co-written with John. Expected to be the next "We Are The Champions", but failed miserably on that account. 1989 The Miracle - Credited to Freddie, but I think that Brian had a lot more to do with it than he would admit. Even so, a good song that lacks punch. Certainly Freddie's best single in the 80's. Am I being too harsh? Perhaps. But if you look at the singles the other bandmembers produced in the 80's you'll see that I'm right. Freddie lost something when he grew the 'tache. By saying that he was overrated I don't mean that he wasn't that great. I'm saying that Brian, Roger and John a greatly UNDERrated, and that goes double for Brian May, because as the topic starter said, he was the most consistent song-writer. He didn't write any No. 1 hits (unless you count that excuse for a single with 5ive), but he wrote a lot of good stuff and most of it memorable. V.

pittrek wrote: I love everything Freddie wrote in the seventies, but absolutely NOTHING he wrote in the eighties. All his songs on Hot Space/The Works/A Kind Of Magic are terrible, Mr. Bad Guy is one of the crappiest albums in history of modern music, only the remixes of its songs are listenable. Barcelona is after a long time something good, but I guess it's because he didn't write the songs alone, and / or he knew his end is near, so he tried to write stuff which was as good as possible. The same goes for songs from The Miracle and Innuendo (except Delilah). As I wrote above, I LOVE everything written by Freddie in the seventies, with two exceptions - Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy and Get Down Make Love. Brian on the other hand did NEVER write a song, which I wouldn't like.

pittrek wrote: Brian on the other hand did NEVER write a song, which I wouldn't like.

saltnvinegar wrote:

pittrek wrote: Brian on the other hand did NEVER write a song, which I wouldn't like.

I'm not questioning your taste in music here but if you were being totally honest, would you say you liked all Brian's songs solely for their musical worth or maybe because Brian wrote them? For example, if an old enka star had written Teo Toriatte for Japanese senior citizens and it just so happened to have got some radio airplay in the West-could you *honestly* say you liked it? In a similar vein, would you have automatically liked 'Princes of the Universe' if Mr May had been the composer and similarly hated 'Gimme the Prize' if it had been one of Freddie's? The point I'm trying to make is, it's only natural to defend the work of an artist we admire although if we listened more objectively, we may be more open to faults and weaknesses. I'm not having a go at Brian fans, I think the same theory goes for Freddie supporters too-some of them favour his songs *because* he wrote them, not necessarily because they're great pieces of music.

pittrek wrote: That is a good question. I'm not really a philosopher, I don't actually know WHY do I like something. I simply know THAT I like something or not. I don't actually care who writes the music that I like to listen, I'm not like the teen girls who visit this site and are for some reason horny about a gay many who died before they were born :-) (your "Freddie - supporters")

pittrek wrote: Brian on the other hand did NEVER write a song, which I wouldn't like.

bigV wrote: Why is it that the "Freddie fans" are the "true Queen fans" and the "Brian fans" are the "obsessed ones". Smells like a double standard. V.

bigV wrote: Why is it that the "Freddie fans" are the "true Queen fans" and the "Brian fans" are the "obsessed ones". Smells like a double standard. V.

Another Roger (re) wrote: 1. Freddie Mercury had the most fantastic voice ever. 2. He was the greatest showman ever 3. He was a great composer in the 70s.

Tero wrote:

pittrek wrote: Brian on the other hand did NEVER write a song, which I wouldn't like.

I'm sorry to say this, but that revelation makes it very hard to take your opinion seriously. (Unless of course your definition of liking something is "not hating something".) I admit that Freddie was my favourite member of the group, and in general I like his songs more than the others... That does not however mean I like every single thing he wrote. Maybe I'm not just as obsessed as people like you, but I think overall that's a good thing. We wouldn't want everyone to fawn over every single piece of crap they produced, would we? ;)

Zebonka12 wrote: Way to go; starting a thread where your assertion is that he was an overrated member of Queen, and then listing amongst his credentials, your belief that he's the most amazing singer of all time. There are 6 billion people on the planet. Somewhere out there, in the past, present, and future, are people who can probably sing better than Freddie. They never get anywhere because they have warts, or they're criminally insane, or because they like doing Michael Bolton covers, but they're out there.

August R. wrote: Unfortunately, even some fans seem to think that Freddie was Queen. We should know better.

Tero wrote: You know... I don't recall EVER seeing anyone either here or at QOL saying that Freddie was Queen.

August R. wrote:

Tero wrote: You know... I don't recall EVER seeing anyone either here or at QOL saying that Freddie was Queen.

link Just scroll down... (Perhaps this is an extreme example, but there you have it) ;)

August R. wrote: I think this a question that us, the Queen fans, can't answer alone. I mean, amongst fans Freddie probably isn't overrated, 'cos we all know that the others were skilled musicians and great composers, as well. Casual rock listeners, on the other hand, often think that Freddie was Queen, e.g. he wrote all the hits and was "the boss" in the band. And that's understandable, 'cos he was such a great singer and frontman and a BIG personality. Even his death was big media event with the tribute concert. No wonder if people tend to over-emphasize Freddie's importance to the band. Unfortunately, even some fans seem to think that Freddie was Queen. We should know better.

Dane wrote: Rogers drums are just as recognizable as Brians guitar. At least for fellow musicians they are. Also Johns arrangements on bass are very recognizable as being his. These contribute just as much to the overall 'Queen-sound'

mike hunt wrote: Roger was a good drummer,  but wasn't all that great ,and rarely gets a mention with the all time best.   The musicians I know arn't all that Impressed by him.

Zebonka12 wrote: I don't think he was an overrated member of Queen - I do think he's a somewhat overrated human being, but that's applicable to just about any public figure with a following of more than a few hundred.

  Sir GH wrote:  

      mike hunt wrote:   Roger was a good drummer,  but wasn't all that great ,and rarely gets a mention with the all time best.   The musicians I know arn't all that Impressed by him.  

Most people, including a fair portion of musicians, equate better with flashier and faster.  For this reason, they do not recognize the talents of the other three remaining members of Queen.  Roger Taylor was and still is a great drummer live.  Check out any version of Now I'm Here during the middle section to see the way he never plays the same thing for 8 bars, always having different fills to keep it sounding fresh.  Same goes for the last section of Spread Your Wings, or the middle of Liar.  These are the subtle things that contribute to the overall picture, not the flashy things that jump out like a 60-piece drum kit.  But if we want to talk about technique, his snare rolls are cleaner than anything John Bonham could have fathomed. John Deacon's delicately melodic style falls into the same category.  His bass work in songs like Sail Away Sweet Sister, Spread Your Wings, and Teo Torriatte are in a league of their own.  This kind of musical texture is not in the forefront, but the music would be much more bare without it.  Danny Miranda once said how John's bass lines are like little stories. And for the same reason, the average music fan does not recognize Brian May as an innovative guitarist.  Brian wasn't flashy like Jimmy Page or Eddie Van Halen, but he contributed just as much to the evolution of rock guitar as they did.  It is his equisite selection of notes and the feeling he plays with that make him stand out from the rest, and of course, the orchestrations in dozens of songs like White Queen and Good Company.  Sixteen bars of music at the end of the latter place him in the top tier of musicians of the past few decades, never mind just rock guitarists.

Zebonka12 wrote: I don't think he was an overrated member of Queen - I do think he's a somewhat overrated human being, but that's applicable to just about any public figure with a following of more than a few hundred.

mike hunt wrote:

  Zebonka12 wrote: I don't think he was an overrated member of Queen - I do think he's a somewhat overrated human being, but that's applicable to just about any public figure with a following of more than a few hundred.

What do you mean by an overated human being?....A lot of people see freddie as a fag who slept with anything in site, but what they fail too realize is this is a man who didn't give up while facing a long and painful death.   He obviously had his faults.

12yrslouetta wrote: Coming to a topic late again. Ho Hum.

Zebonka12 wrote: No way, pie analogy wins.  Check this -

Zebonka12 wrote: No way, pie analogy wins.  Check this -It's a massive apple pie.  But like, Freddie is the apple goopy stuff in the middle, and the other guys are the pastry.  Freddie is the most popular and appreciated bit, but without the pastry he's totally inconvenient and difficult to eat.

Zebonka12 wrote: I dunno.  They got further without Freddie than Freddie got without them.  In their case, he was the missing link - in Freddie's case, the other guys were the counterbalance.   Without Freddie they'd have been a well orchestrated but mostly average rock band, with a few innovative guitar sounds.   There is no guarantee that Freddie would've gotten anywhere on his own.  The first two or three albums are what made those guys as writers and players.  Who is to say what would've become of Freddie without that experience?   It's pretty likely that Freddie contributed more to the mission statement of the band than any other member did, but musically (and this is all about the music in my opinion) none of them would've ever been on Top of the Pops without each other.   The proof is in what happened when they were left to their own devices.  Brian and Roger made some interesting solo music (actually I love Resurrection, but that's another topic).  Q+PR were decidedly average.   And Freddie??  Do I even need to mention "Let's Turn it On"??   Sussudio part 2 on line one, folks .... I'd rather have a full Queen than Freddie!

  Zebonka12 wrote: I dunno.  They got further without Freddie than Freddie got without them.  In their case, he was the missing link - in Freddie's case, the other guys were the counterbalance.  

dragon-fly wrote: My Fairy King, Liar, Great King Rat without guitar????? [img=/images/smiley/msn/confused_smile.gif][/img] Shall I laugh or cry? Don't take offence, but I'm surprised with such views. Ah, it was going so well- apple pie, cake....

  Funky Horsie wrote: You obviously didn't get my point... But MFK has very few guitar lines... I mean, it doesn't change the backing track at all and the vocals are still there... The song is almost the same and, to be honest, the guitar parts are not what makes the difference in the song.

Funky Horsie wrote: Killer Queen, We are the Champions, Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody to Love... the guitar has MOMENTS in the songs, but it's not that important. And those were the songs that really made it for Queen. he had 95% of the idea already worked out, that's much more than enough.

The bass lines and the drum parts could have been played by any other session musician, not hard at all.

Sir GH wrote:

                                                              Funky Horsie wrote:                                               Killer Queen, We are the Champions, Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody to Love... the guitar has MOMENTS in the songs, but it's not that important. And those were the songs that really made it for Queen. he had 95% of the idea already worked out, that's much more than enough.                              

I see what you're getting at, but that's only part of the picture. There was a magical chemistry between the four members to put all the parts together to achieve the overall sound.  There's far more to music than just playing notes technically well.

The bass lines and the drum parts could have been played by any other session musician, not hard at all.

Session musicians probably wouldn't have understood the exact vibe Freddie wanted for his songs.  Sure, these guys could read a chart and play all the right notes, but they'd get everything else wrong.  It probably would've sounded like any of those Queen tribute bands on youtube. And really, how would that opera section of BoRhap sound without Roger Taylor? You're right, Freddie had many of the band's best ideas, especially at their creative peak.  But he needed the other three to execute them.

Zebonka12 wrote: I dunno.  They got further without Freddie than Freddie got without them.  In their case, he was the missing link - in Freddie's case, the other guys were the counterbalance.  

Sheer Brass Neck wrote: With apologies to whoever created the thread, as it's one of the few vigorously debated topics on QZ these days, if you know anything about music, Freddie Mercury is grotesquely underrated.  He didn't make the band, the four of them did.   However, his contributions in songwriting, performance, vocals and imagery were key in setting them apart.  I heard I want to break free for the first time in a long time a few nights back.  At best, a catchy pop song that is hardly one of Queen's best efforts.  Yet that song was incredibly meaningful for the people of South America.  Why?  Not a  particularly memorable tune in the grand scheme of things, but Freddie Mercury sings the fuck out of the lines "I want to break free" so much so that repressed people rally behind it.  For those who say Paul Rodgers was/is a better singer than Freddie, I would question why no one has ever taken one of his songs as a rallying cry.  It's not like IWTBF is Dylaeque or Lennonish in its lytical message,  but people relate due to the strength of hisconviction.   

Holly2003 wrote:

  Sheer Brass Neck wrote: With apologies to whoever created the thread, as it's one of the few vigorously debated topics on QZ these days, if you know anything about music, Freddie Mercury is grotesquely underrated.  He didn't make the band, the four of them did.   However, his contributions in songwriting, performance, vocals and imagery were key in setting them apart.  I heard I want to break free for the first time in a long time a few nights back.  At best, a catchy pop song that is hardly one of Queen's best efforts.  Yet that song was incredibly meaningful for the people of South America.  Why?  Not a  particularly memorable tune in the grand scheme of things, but Freddie Mercury sings the fuck out of the lines "I want to break free" so much so that repressed people rally behind it.  For those who say Paul Rodgers was/is a better singer than Freddie, I would question why no one has ever taken one of his songs as a rallying cry.  It's not like IWTBF is Dylaeque or Lennonish in its lytical message,  but people relate due to the strength of hisconviction.   

I've never seen any evidence that IWTBF is incredibly meaningful to the people of South America (or for that matter, South Africa) apart from some press releases by EMI. Can anyone from S,America add anything to this?

Sir GH wrote:

                                                              Funky Horsie wrote:                                               Killer Queen, We are the Champions, Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody to Love... the guitar has MOMENTS in the songs, but it's not that important. And those were the songs that really made it for Queen. he had 95% of the idea already worked out, that's much more than enough.                              

I see what you're getting at, but that's only part of the picture. There was a magical chemistry between the four members to put all the parts together to achieve the overall sound.  There's far more to music than just playing notes technically well.

The bass lines and the drum parts could have been played by any other session musician, not hard at all.

Session musicians probably wouldn't have understood the exact vibe Freddie wanted for his songs.  Sure, these guys could read a chart and play all the right notes, but they'd get everything else wrong.  It probably would've sounded like any of those Queen tribute bands on youtube. And really, how would that opera section of BoRhap sound without Roger Taylor? You're right, Freddie had many of the band's best ideas, especially at their creative peak.  But he needed the other three to execute them.

Funky Horsie wrote: There was GREAT chemistry between them but, you see, it's obvious that the other three worked much much better when Freddie was around. He knew how to get the best of them. It shows on what they did after he passed away.

Funky Horsie wrote: I mean, after all, he knew Brian and Roger and he knew their music before he asked them if he could join the band. He had his ideas and he knew what he wanted. If there hadn't been a Brian and a Roger, he would have looked for other musicians capable of doing what he wanted to do.

Sebastian wrote: This is what Kes posted on the QOL forum about its sales: - I Want To Break Free (1984) USA: 200,000 Canada: #27 (5) Australia: 50,000+ #8 (21) New Zealand: #6 (19) South Africa: #1 (7) (25) Brazil: #1 Colombia: #1 -Europe: 1,800,00 #1 (4) (18) UK: 500,000 Germany: 400,000 #4 (20) Netherlands: 150,000 #1 (2) Belgium: #1 (3) (12) Switzerland: 50,000 #2 (16) Austria: 50,000+ #1 (4) Spain: 50,000+ #5 (22) France: 250,000 #8 Portugal: 20,000 #1 Ireland : #2 (10) Total worldwide : 2,500,000 I don't actually see a pattern there: one African territory, two South American ones and four countries in Western Europe. The fact it sold twice as much in West Germany than it did in the States says a lot.

Sebastian wrote: A song can be significant to anybody anywhere. Unless we actually make a census, we can't know for sure... so yes, Break Free, Under Pressure or even Great King Rat could have a special meaning for somebody under San Yu's, Mohamed Khouna Ould Haidalla's or now Roberto Micheletti's governments, and none for others under the same circumstances.

Ken8 wrote: Look how well Queen do without him and you'll see how "overrated" he was.

Sir GH wrote:

Funky Horsie wrote: I mean, after all, he knew Brian and Roger and he knew their music before he asked them if he could join the band. He had his ideas and he knew what he wanted. If there hadn't been a Brian and a Roger, he would have looked for other musicians capable of doing what he wanted to do.

Assuming that's the case, how many other guys like Brian May were there in the 70s?  Not only with his melodic style, but his arrangement abilities and tone? And I still contend that BoRhap would not have been BoRhap without Roger's voice in there.  The distinct differences in their three voices was its very charm.

Funky Horsie wrote: Don't Stop Me Now is perfect as it is. The solo is great, of course... but it's not somethng the song couldn't do without, as it barely has guitar. We Are The Champions has great guitar parts but it's not something Freddie couldn't come up with and give somebody else to play. Bo Rhap was Freddie's idea... so he just had to fine somebody to play the guitar parts they way he wanted. That's my point.

GratefulFan wrote: And what if Freddie's vision of  the guitar parts "the way he wanted" grew from years and years of proximity to unique and inspired guitar work by Brian May? It's all a continuum, and a constantly evolving aggregate of innate gift, experience (chance and otherwise), musical influence (conscious and otherwise), the zeitgeist and on and on.  No band has indicated more often or more clearly or more correctly that they were a whole that was bigger than the sum of it's parts.

GratefulFan wrote:

  Funky Horsie wrote: Don't Stop Me Now is perfect as it is. The solo is great, of course... but it's not somethng the song couldn't do without, as it barely has guitar. We Are The Champions has great guitar parts but it's not something Freddie couldn't come up with and give somebody else to play. Bo Rhap was Freddie's idea... so he just had to fine somebody to play the guitar parts they way he wanted. That's my point.

And what if Freddie's vision of  the guitar parts "the way he wanted" grew from years and years of proximity to unique and inspired guitar work by Brian May? It's all a continuum, and a constantly evolving aggregate of innate gift, experience (chance and otherwise), musical influence (conscious and otherwise), the zeitgeist and on and on.  No band has indicated more often or more clearly or more correctly that they were a whole that was bigger than the sum of its parts. 

dragon-fly wrote: Ha, I just noticed what says your signature: "21/11/08 Saw Brian May live. Best night of my life." It's kinda funny... Anyway, I've said enough. I'm out of here.

Funky Horsie wrote: On the other hand, what I'm saying is that Freddie was, by fucking far, the most important part of Queen.

Funky Horsie wrote:

  dragon-fly wrote: Ha, I just noticed what says your signature: "21/11/08 Saw Brian May live. Best night of my life." It's kinda funny... Anyway, I've said enough. I'm out of here.

And your point is...? --- On the other hand, what I'm saying is that Freddie was, by fucking far, the most important part of Queen.

Sebastian wrote: the brain's the creative aspect of Queen, so the four of them are there (Fred a bit more, then the doctor, then Rog and then John if we count numerically). The heart's the instrumental performance (it's just an example), where the four of them are included as well (drums, bass, keyboards and guitar, with occasional incursions in other instruments); the blood could be the vocal harmonies, where Fred dominates, then Rog, then Brian; the lungs could be the way their records sound, where all four plus producers and engineers take part, etc. So, at the end of the day, if we took any of them away, it wouldn't be losing one organ, but losing a vital part of all or most of them... that's why: No John: No Queen No Roger: No Queen No Freddie: No Queen No Brian: No Queen

Sebastian wrote: No John: No Queen No Roger: No Queen No Freddie: No Queen No Brian: No Queen

Zebonka12 wrote:

Sebastian wrote: No John: No Queen No Roger: No Queen No Freddie: No Queen No Brian: No Queen

With this, I can heartily agree.

Funky Horsie wrote: Without Freddie, there is NOTHING. Queen is a tricycle. Freddie is the thing itself and the other three are the wheels. And fuck, they're not the only wheels available.

Funky Horsie wrote:

  Zebonka12 wrote: I dunno.  They got further without Freddie than Freddie got without them.  In their case, he was the missing link - in Freddie's case, the other guys were the counterbalance.   Without Freddie they'd have been a well orchestrated but mostly average rock band, with a few innovative guitar sounds.   There is no guarantee that Freddie would've gotten anywhere on his own.  The first two or three albums are what made those guys as writers and players.  Who is to say what would've become of Freddie without that experience?   It's pretty likely that Freddie contributed more to the mission statement of the band than any other member did, but musically (and this is all about the music in my opinion) none of them would've ever been on Top of the Pops without each other.   The proof is in what happened when they were left to their own devices.  Brian and Roger made some interesting solo music (actually I love Resurrection, but that's another topic).  Q+PR were decidedly average.   And Freddie??  Do I even need to mention "Let's Turn it On"??   Sussudio part 2 on line one, folks .... I'd rather have a full Queen than Freddie!

But, you see, Let's Turn it On was an average song of the mid 80's, when everybody was doing that kind of shit. Poor arrangements, few keyboards, drum machines... I mean, it fits perfectly its moment. But, you see... let's just see what Freddie did on the first albums: My Fairy King. Much much much much more than the other three could do, combined. The bass lines and the drum parts could have been played by any other session musician, not hard at all. The guitar arrangement is great but it's not that important... I mean, you take out the guitar lines and you still have the song. Liar is guitar oriented but it's mostly rhythm... I mean, except the solo which we don't know if it's Brian's or Freddie's... anyone could play the chords (except Jimmy Page, of course), which where OBVIOUSLY written by Freddie. You take out the solo... you still have the song. The solo is just a bridge between one section and another. Great King Rat has great guitar lines, it would SO not be the same without Brian. The Fairy Feller's Master Stroke. Freddie could have done without the rest. No doubts. Killer Queen, We are the Champions, Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody to Love... the guitar has MOMENTS in the songs, but it's not that important. And those were the songs that really made it for Queen. Where would Brian May be without Freddie's songs? Nowhere. Where would Freddie be without Brian's solos? Probably not in the same place but fuck, he had 95% of the idea already worked out, that's much more than enough.

Sebastian wrote: John looks more like Disco Stu with the Ga Ga hair. Who's Hans Moleman?

Funky Horsie wrote: And he was already writing rhapsodies since day 1. Does Fairy King ring any bell??

Sebastian wrote: Fred's Krusty and Sideshow Bri always hated him because he was just a second in command. Roger's either Mel (dog with a bone) or Cletus (horny and peasant), John's either Lovejoy (though his wife is Catholic) or Fall-Out Boy, Spike and Jamie are Lenny and Carl, Danny's Chief Wiggum, John Reid's Willie, Brian's son is Ralph, Anita's Edna, Crystal and Ratty are Kang and Kodos.

              Sir GH wrote:       That was recorded in 1972.  Freddie could have been influenced by Brian and/or Roger as early as 1969, as he was a FAN of Smile. I see the point you're trying to make, but it's baseless.  It's your opinion, and nothing more.  If all the members of Queen have emphatically stated numerous times that they were each 25% of the equation, then that's what it is.      

Sebastian wrote: But... of course they were not equal. If all the members of Queen have emphatically stated numerous times that they were each 25% of the equation, then that's their opinion, and nothing more; each of us has all the right to agree or disagree with it. And how can you prove they simply weren't being polite? Or are we supposed to believe Fred's 'I dress to kill' quote and regard him as a murderer?

Truth is: I can say I can fly, and it doesn't make it right; Roger, Brian, John and Fred can say each one was 25% and it doesn't make it right.

PS: My Fairy King influenced by Brian and Roger? Sure... it's virtually a Blag rip-off - especially the ending progression, typical 60's Roger: a piano virtuoso with fluency on halfdiminished chords and non-square phrasing. Right...

Sheer Brass Neck wrote: And Sir GH, as someone who was for Queen & Paul Rodgers, surely you can see that the chemistry that the original line-up could never be recreated in a million years, and that people like Sebastian (and I) or at least I never bought that lineup as it was contrived compared to what Queen had as FOUR members with strong personalities.  

Sebastian wrote: Does that mean that in spite of what the artist says, we're entitled to our own opinions and views on the matter? Yes

* The creative side of Queen, music-wise, was dominated by Freddie. * The creative side of Queen, arrangement-wise, was dominated by Freddie. * The performing side of Queen, production-wise, was dominated by Freddie (I'll elaborate on that later).

Just as you criticised my 'MIH' comments last week because I wasn't there, I can say the following: you were NEVER EVER inside the minds of F, B, R & J, so you CAN'T know whether the 25% comment was figurative or not. Of course, I can't either... but I'm curious about the double standards.

  Sebastian wrote: Last but not least, regarding Back Chat: just because Bri said he'd convinced John to include a solo (and not entering into the whole memory debate), it doesn't mean he wrote it. Of course, I can't know if every single note, word, mixing detail, etc. was John's idea, but it IS safe to say that MOST of that was created by him (especially on a song like that where he also played several instruments). So, was John in charge of 100% of the lyrics? Maybe, maybe not (for all we know, maybe one of his kids suggested the 'get your way' line and wasn't credited).

Sebastian wrote: Sure! And the 'twisting' line must belong to Paul McCartney since there's NO WAY anybody else on the planet could write that. I heard that when somebody other than him tries to write it, a galaxy implodes!

Sebastian wrote: They've said that the creator of the song dominated the production The Q Mag article from '99 features Gary Lyons (IIRC) commenting on how Freddie used to be right there in the console overseeing the way things were produced, even in songs he hadn't written. The Making of One Vision... it doesn't prove that the remaining 150+ of Queen songs were done that way (with Fred taking over and instructing them and so on), but it does suggest some sort of pattern. You can safely tell (without having a PhD in behavioural psychology or knowing them personally) by both his and their reaction, that it wasn't the first time that happened.

It was NOT, however, a 25-25-25-25 situation, since some members wrote more arrangements than others.

Bob's web, interesting as it is, also has the risk of being incomplete or mistaken. The very nicely-done stats could fail to include, for instance, a filmed concert from 1976 that nobody else knows about because the person who did it never cared to contact collectors and confirm the existence of a tape.

Sebastian wrote: > Freddie is not what kept Queen together for 20 years. They all did. Indeed. But not in the same amount.

> Each individual's contributions go far beyond what is physically on the record and who tangibly did what.  And if you don't understand this, then that's truly unfortunate. There's no way you can possibly know if I can or can't understand something.

(and 'Bri's the guitarist so he wrote the solos' isn't one)

Sir GH wrote: Ok... I think we've taken this far enough. Cheers.

vadenuez wrote: This is one of the best threads here lately. However I need one explanation to understand it better... Sebastian, in the world of Queen, when you say 'lyrics' are you referring only to 'words' or 'words AND melody'?

Sebastian wrote: Words only. But that's an interesting matter: on Is This the World..., Brian came up with the chords, Fred with the lyrics... who came up with the melody?

Sebastian wrote: Words only. But that's an interesting matter: on Is This the World..., Brian came up with the chords, Fred with the lyrics... who came up with the melody?

mike hunt wrote: the one vision video say's it all.  freddie looks dominate, while the others look to him for guidance.

vadenuez wrote: Now, your answer opens indeed a totally new Pandora's box. Knowing that the band members were so protective (or might say anal) about their songs, it seems to me that the 'lyricist gets the credits' part wouldn't be that accurate. I assume that 99% of the songs were completed almost totally by their main writer but... what about if Brian wrote a song called 'Tie The Cosmos Down' and Freddie thought it was shit so he changed the lyrics on the fly, while recording the vocals and changed it to 'Tie Your Mother Down'. Should the song stopped being Brian's baby and turned into a Mercury credited song just because of the new lyrics? do you believe Brian would give up his song that easily?

Sir GH wrote:

  mike hunt wrote: the one vision video say's it all.  freddie looks dominate, while the others look to him for guidance.

But that's just one song out of about 150 - and one of the very few songs (pre-1988) credited to all four members. Assuming he was the dominant member in that era, who's to say that's how it was in the 70s too, when they were much more of a collective body?

Sir GH wrote:

mike hunt wrote: the one vision video say's it all.  freddie looks dominate, while the others look to him for guidance.

But that's just one song out of about 150 - and one of the very few songs (pre-1988) credited to all four members. Assuming he was the dominant member in that era, who's to say that's how it was in the 70s too, when they were much more of a collective body?

Sebastian wrote: I'm not trying to untangle any sort of soul, spirit or ghost. And of course I'm sticking with what can be measured. And what can be measured points at that, while the four of them were irreplaceable, vital and crucial, they were not equally irreplaceable, vital and crucial.