QueenZone discussion #1170373

Yara wrote: I wrote this last year here on Queenzone and it's related to the topic at hand. A dear Queenzoner asked me to find the post and re-post it, and here it is. As always, I hope it helps: "Hi, Boca! I think music would be a very hard thing to do, even for the most gifted, if artists couldn't rely on other people's work, past and present, to create pieces of their own. In every piece of music there are signs of a certain, or of many, musical traditions - no one breakes new ground without being acquainted with what has already been achieved in the musical tradition. One has to start from some point. Things don't come up out of thin air or nothing.    In the end of the day, however, if the composer is really imaginative, he succeeds in creating new, fresh interesting material from things he has listened to, read, remembers, and so on. I think it's very hard to tell sometimes plagiarism from influence - some songs are so strikingly similar in some respects that one tends to think that the composer did only a "copy and paste" process, but that's not so simple.   Freddie's piano harmonic progressions and runs are reminiscent of dozens of classical pieces - you may find yourself listening to the introduction to "Death on Two Legs" or to the live intros to Somebody To Love in the works tour in the middle of a Liszt or Chopin composition - but then such artists as Liszt and Chopin or, as far as singing is concerned, Aretha, availed themselves of the tradition to create new ways of approaching an instrument or even vocals which turned out to be the very framework within which other artists would do their stuff. With time, their influence is so pervasive that one is just infected by it and tends to build things based on such influences unconsciously. Freddie's vocals in "Somebody to Love", especially in the 80's, seemed like a conscious effort to sound like Aretha - however, the song itself, even though it does have traditional gospel elements, is a new, fresh piece of music with a lot of innovation and creativity.   The guitar introduction of Oasis' "Cigarretes & Alcohol" can be heard on Power Station's "Get it On", on about two or three Kiss' songs, and I started to try to trace it and it goes back to some basic blues progressions which happened to be developed to sound as a catchy and groovy rock n roll motive. These developments were so obvious, musically speaking, that different people made it on their own, only to find that someone else had already drawned that conclusion before.  I think plagiarism, that is, the conscient reproduction of other people's work without acknolwdgement and any further significant input or innovation is very hard to prove. These things are not so clear-cut.  Freddie and Brian were heavily influenced by many artists. Such influences do show up in a more striking way in some songs, but in the end of the day their own input is creative enough to produce new, fresh and interesting tunes.  I can't help but remembering Robert Plant and Led when I listen to the original version of Sheer Heart Attack. There may be an influence there, but the Queen tune has a mark of its own and I like it more than any Led song.    So, even though by listening to Queen I do listen partially, consciously or not, to other artists, I can't think of any song that the guys plagiarized.  I know the answer turned out to be too long, but well, it's NO. I can't think of plagiarism in any Queen song - influence, even heavy influence, yes, but not really plagiarism.  Cheers and take care!" 

Thunderbolt wrote: Whereas Treasure Moment is a perfect example of no-talent assclowns who can't write a single decent song.

Treasure Moment wrote:

  Thunderbolt wrote: Whereas Treasure Moment is a perfect example of no-talent assclowns who can't write a single decent song.

In your dreams retard, TM has more talent than 20 big mainstream bands put together.

Treasure Moment wrote: In your dreams retard, TM has more talent than 20 big mainstream bands put together.

Major Tom wrote:

  Treasure Moment wrote:  

      Thunderbolt wrote:   Whereas Treasure Moment is a perfect example of no-talent assclowns who can't write a single decent song.  

In your dreams retard, TM has more talent than 20 big mainstream bands put together.

OMG! OMFG! LOL! ROFLMAO!

Zebonka12 wrote:

  Treasure Moment wrote: In your dreams retard, TM has more talent than 20 big mainstream bands put together.

Yeah, but which ones??

Yara wrote: I wrote this last year here on Queenzone and it's related to the topic at hand. A dear Queenzoner asked me to find the post and re-post it, and here it is. As always, I hope it helps: "Hi, Boca! I think music would be a very hard thing to do, even for the most gifted, if artists couldn't rely on other people's work, past and present, to create pieces of their own. In every piece of music there are signs of a certain, or of many, musical traditions - no one breakes new ground without being acquainted with what has already been achieved in the musical tradition. One has to start from some point. Things don't come up out of thin air or nothing.    In the end of the day, however, if the composer is really imaginative, he succeeds in creating new, fresh interesting material from things he has listened to, read, remembers, and so on. I think it's very hard to tell sometimes plagiarism from influence - some songs are so strikingly similar in some respects that one tends to think that the composer did only a "copy and paste" process, but that's not so simple.   Freddie's piano harmonic progressions and runs are reminiscent of dozens of classical pieces - you may find yourself listening to the introduction to "Death on Two Legs" or to the live intros to Somebody To Love in the works tour in the middle of a Liszt or Chopin composition - but then such artists as Liszt and Chopin or, as far as singing is concerned, Aretha, availed themselves of the tradition to create new ways of approaching an instrument or even vocals which turned out to be the very framework within which other artists would do their stuff. With time, their influence is so pervasive that one is just infected by it and tends to build things based on such influences unconsciously. Freddie's vocals in "Somebody to Love", especially in the 80's, seemed like a conscious effort to sound like Aretha - however, the song itself, even though it does have traditional gospel elements, is a new, fresh piece of music with a lot of innovation and creativity.   The guitar introduction of Oasis' "Cigarretes & Alcohol" can be heard on Power Station's "Get it On", on about two or three Kiss' songs, and I started to try to trace it and it goes back to some basic blues progressions which happened to be developed to sound as a catchy and groovy rock n roll motive. These developments were so obvious, musically speaking, that different people made it on their own, only to find that someone else had already drawned that conclusion before.  I think plagiarism, that is, the conscient reproduction of other people's work without acknolwdgement and any further significant input or innovation is very hard to prove. These things are not so clear-cut.  Freddie and Brian were heavily influenced by many artists. Such influences do show up in a more striking way in some songs, but in the end of the day their own input is creative enough to produce new, fresh and interesting tunes.  I can't help but remembering Robert Plant and Led when I listen to the original version of Sheer Heart Attack. There may be an influence there, but the Queen tune has a mark of its own and I like it more than any Led song.    So, even though by listening to Queen I do listen partially, consciously or not, to other artists, I can't think of any song that the guys plagiarized.  I know the answer turned out to be too long, but well, it's NO. I can't think of plagiarism in any Queen song - influence, even heavy influence, yes, but not really plagiarism.  Cheers and take care!" 

thequeen wrote: Led Zeppelin sucks .....most overated band ever !!!

Sir GH wrote:

  thequeen wrote: Led Zeppelin sucks .....most overated band ever !!!

What was the point of that?  The fact that others are discussing this band doesn't mean you have to give a childishly expressed opinion that isn't going to add to the discussion.  Instead of spouting your constant negativity, say something positive now and again.  You might feel a bit better too.

thequeen wrote: Oh sorry , It wasn't meant to be childish at all. I just don't lik LZ at all!

*goodco* wrote: A repeated  question:  what part of BoRhap, and where, does it appear in 'Octavarium'?  Thanks in advance.

Yara wrote: Then came the guy saying that Led stinks, and I showed him, who's a Freddie lover, that Freddie not only loved Led Zeppelin, but had Robert Plant as one of his favorite singers - and he said so at least in two occasions: 1975 and 1977 - that is, encompassing both SHA the album, which Brian thinks is quite "dirty" and influenced by Led, by the way, and Sheer Heart Attack the song, where I think Freddie drew heavily, apart from the chorus, on Plant's bluesy, hard rock but at the same time more glam, grooved and delicate style.

Yara wrote: In the demo version, yes. It was meant for him to sing, but they share duties in the final version. Freddie ended up taking the largest chunk of it and gave it a distinctive mark, on which I commented above. The chorus, I think, is a different beast: it's a vocal harmony which puts forward the Queen trademark and the other elements go to the background. It's a great combination.   Brian May said once: "Well, it's mixture - a compromise, as often happened in these cases. Roger had done a demo, and our usual practice was to use the demo's as a bed for the final track. Roger had sung it all, but the decision was made to get Freddie to the job for the record. Roger was keen that Freddie sing it pretty much like the demo to retain the (kind of Punkspoof?) atmosphere. Freddie didn't find it that easy since it wasn't his natural style. But it's Freddie you hear doing the verses - double tracked." And that's my point, but it could be developed in another thread...I guess it's better. I think Freddie didn't go well with Roger's take and added a Robert Plant mark there - It's my opinion. Brian made other remarks which lead me to believe it's not an absurd opinion, but it is, of course, my own personal opinion. Best regards, Yara

*goodco* wrote: Yara, thanks for the Octavarium link and your thoughtful posts.......... btw, when trying to hear BoRhap in the title track, I'd heard the 'now I've gone and thrown it all away' ......piano/guitar lick over and over and over again (includes the flute/synth part just before the lyrics begin as well). Maybe I should add that comment to the site.

Sir GH wrote: Well, it's all about how you define a rip-off... Theoretically-speaking, it's a D sus arpeggio played repeatedly.  Queen probably weren't the first to think about that, either. As Brian May recently said, one can't create music from a vacuum.  You're bound to be influenced by things around you.  It may be the same notes, but Dream Theater do something completely different with them. Although Dream Theater often wear their influences on their sleeve, Images And Words is a superb album - one of the best rock albums ever, as far as I'm concerned.  It's the one record they did that is completely focused on the songwriting. To me, this thread just sounds like yet another case of Queen fans somehow trying to justify the ever-growing view that Queen were the first band to come up with countless musical ideas and are somehow not allowed to influence others, discrediting other artists when they do.  Until marketing became a big tool for music in the 50s and copyright laws came to be, it was seen as the greatest possible compliment and honour when someone quoted your song in their own. History and details aside, really, who cares if a few notes are the same as a Queen song?  Queen were great, as are other bands.  Peace, love, and enjoy the music.

ThomasQuinn wrote: You tried to copy every synthetic, unimaginative '80s rip-off band. Doubly ironic.

Treasure Moment wrote: We dont copy anything, what we do however is to create music better than anything 50 mainstream bands could do put together.

Zebonka12 wrote:

  Treasure Moment wrote: We dont copy anything, what we do however is to create music better than anything 50 mainstream bands could do put together.

And you do it without a permanent line-up.  That IS impressive! When are you going to upload it?

doxonrox wrote:

Yara wrote: In the demo version, yes. It was meant for him to sing, but they share duties in the final version. Freddie ended up taking the largest chunk of it and gave it a distinctive mark, on which I commented above. The chorus, I think, is a different beast: it's a vocal harmony which puts forward the Queen trademark and the other elements go to the background. It's a great combination.   Brian May said once: "Well, it's mixture - a compromise, as often happened in these cases. Roger had done a demo, and our usual practice was to use the demo's as a bed for the final track. Roger had sung it all, but the decision was made to get Freddie to the job for the record. Roger was keen that Freddie sing it pretty much like the demo to retain the (kind of Punkspoof?) atmosphere. Freddie didn't find it that easy since it wasn't his natural style. But it's Freddie you hear doing the verses - double tracked." And that's my point, but it could be developed in another thread...I guess it's better. I think Freddie didn't go well with Roger's take and added a Robert Plant mark there - It's my opinion. Brian made other remarks which lead me to believe it's not an absurd opinion, but it is, of course, my own personal opinion. Best regards, Yara

Yeah, I've read that multiple times. But I don't buy it. I know Roger's voice when I hear it. Freddie and Rog mixed - maybe. But definitely not Freddie alone. It's pretty obvious.

Treasure Moment wrote: the songs on the myspace is already better than all the mainstream bands music put together.

Sir GH wrote:

      Treasure Moment wrote:   the songs on the myspace is already better than all the mainstream bands music put together.  

Then why don't you put together a PK and send it to the major labels and get yourself a record deal?  The radio and shops aren't going to take the songs off your myspace page.

ThomasQuinn wrote: I can just imagine the faces of the poor people at those labels who have to listen to demo tapes. "Good god! I didn't know Milli Vanilli were high on DMT!"

Sir GH wrote: Well, it's all about how you define a rip-off... Theoretically-speaking, it's a D sus arpeggio played repeatedly.  Queen probably weren't the first to think about that, either. As Brian May recently said, one can't create music from a vacuum.  You're bound to be influenced by things around you.  It may be the same notes, but Dream Theater do something completely different with them. Although Dream Theater often wear their influences on their sleeve, Images And Words is a superb album - one of the best rock albums ever, as far as I'm concerned.  It's the one record they did that is completely focused on the songwriting. To me, this thread just sounds like yet another case of Queen fans somehow trying to justify the ever-growing view that Queen were the first band to come up with countless musical ideas and are somehow not allowed to influence others, discrediting other artists when they do.  Until marketing became a big tool for music in the 50s and copyright laws came to be, it was seen as the greatest possible compliment and honour when someone quoted your song in their own. History and details aside, really, who cares if a few notes are the same as a Queen song?  Queen were great, as are other bands.  Peace, love, and enjoy the music.

Treasure Moment wrote:

ThomasQuinn wrote: I can just imagine the faces of the poor people at those labels who have to listen to demo tapes. "Good god! I didn't know Milli Vanilli were high on DMT!"

those people on the labels with their extreme bad taste and knowledge of music couldnt make 1/1000 of what we do. The fact that they give garbage bands and talentless rappers and britney spear like "artists" contracts says a few things about them.

ThomasQuinn wrote:

  Treasure Moment wrote:  

      ThomasQuinn wrote:   I can just imagine the faces of the poor people at those labels who have to listen to demo tapes. "Good god! I didn't know Milli Vanilli were high on DMT!"  

those people on the labels with their extreme bad taste and knowledge of music couldnt make 1/1000 of what we do. The fact that they give garbage bands and talentless rappers and britney spear like "artists" contracts says a few things about them.

They don't care about taste. All they care about is money, and they know very well what they can market and what not. And you, indeed, are not marketable.

Treasure Moment wrote:

  ThomasQuinn wrote:  

      Treasure Moment wrote:      

              ThomasQuinn wrote:       I can just imagine the faces of the poor people at those labels who have to listen to demo tapes. "Good god! I didn't know Milli Vanilli were high on DMT!"      

those people on the labels with their extreme bad taste and knowledge of music couldnt make 1/1000 of what we do. The fact that they give garbage bands and talentless rappers and britney spear like "artists" contracts says a few things about them.

They don't care about taste. All they care about is money, and they know very well what they can market and what not. And you, indeed, are not marketable.

of course we are not marketable because we actually make awesome music, marketable music is something so lacking of talent that its a joke.

Major Tom wrote:

  Treasure Moment wrote:  

      ThomasQuinn wrote:      

              Treasure Moment wrote:              

                              ThomasQuinn wrote:               I can just imagine the faces of the poor people at those labels who have to listen to demo tapes. "Good god! I didn't know Milli Vanilli were high on DMT!"              

those people on the labels with their extreme bad taste and knowledge of music couldnt make 1/1000 of what we do. The fact that they give garbage bands and talentless rappers and britney spear like "artists" contracts says a few things about them.

They don't care about taste. All they care about is money, and they know very well what they can market and what not. And you, indeed, are not marketable.

of course we are not marketable because we actually make awesome music, marketable music is something so lacking of talent that its a joke.

WOW...Now who's in denial? YOU ARE THE SHEEP. Haha...just the fact that you exist, sickens me. Let alone that you think you're the most awsome and talanted musician in the universe. I feel like throwing up.

Treasure Moment wrote: those people on the labels with their extreme bad taste and knowledge of music couldnt make 1/1000 of what we do. The fact that they give garbage bands and talentless rappers and britney spear like "artists" contracts says a few things about them.

Sir GH wrote:

Treasure Moment wrote: those people on the labels with their extreme bad taste and knowledge of music couldnt make 1/1000 of what we do. The fact that they give garbage bands and talentless rappers and britney spear like "artists" contracts says a few things about them.

Absolutely.  But that is just part of the picture, as quickly consumable music is only one aspect of what is marketable.  There are plenty of quality artists who have gotten record deals as well.  You just don't recognize them for the good they're providing, because you choose to label them as talentless as well... artists like Oasis, Foo Fighters, Radiohead, Muse, Feist, Kings of Leon, the Arcade Fire, Rufus Wainwright, and the Cat Empire. Tastes aside, few sensible people (let alone serious musicians) would group in any of these artists with disposable pop like Britney Spears.  Or do you know better than them, too? Unless you start broadening your horizons and understand why these kinds of artists get record deals, you haven't got a chance.  But again, you might get signed to become an 80s parody band.  In that case, be sure to read the fine print very carefully.

Sir GH wrote: Fair play. That said, who says an artist needs to make commercially-viable music?  Plenty of artists very do well outside of the mainstream without having to adhere to its demands et all... thank goodness.

Yara wrote: Hi Thomas, how are you? I hope you're doing fine.

To be marketable a band or a musician must only create something that people can enjoy, regardless of being in or completely outside of the mainstream, in my humble opinion. There's barely a piece of music which is not marketable - even what's considered the most uncompromised kind of music has proven to be over time totally marketable. Why? Because there are people like you, that is, people who don't want to listen to what's been offered in the mainstream, looking out for it -  economically speaking, there's demand for very different kinds of music other than mainstream by people like you. If there's demand, there are people willing to meet it. Except maybe for Queen Productions, a case study. lol 

My point being: your relation to music isn't direct. It's mediated by the market. Even what's most advanced in music, say the Second Vienna School, or the most uncompromised, say Cecil Taylor or Tony Braxton, make their way into your ears through the market: there are people who study years and years and are trained to play Alban Berg's, Messiaen's or Boulez's pieces - these people study in institutions and they make contracts with record companies to release their product, which is what we get to listen to. Cecil Taylor may sound unacessible to some, but it's a hero for many others - that's why he's marketable and has sold a lot of recordings under many labels. The guy even managed to tour with his music - he played in Brazil some years ago to a massive audience if you take into account the kind of music he does.

Let's take a more simple example: John Coltrane, which it seems you like a lot, rightly so, I love it too. Is he marketable? Yes, absolutely! Why? Because there have always been, since he was alive, people who wanted to listen to what he wanted to play; and there were record labels willing to hire the guy and his band. Olé, an album which you say you appreciate, is Coltrane in one of its most simple phases - it has nothing or very little to do with the sound he ended up making in such albums as Ascension. The title-track isn't particularly complex, but it's thrilling and very accessible, by the way: it has a lot of groove because Coltrane's soloing is quite catchy, Dolphy's flute is a joy to listen to, apart from adding an excentric and exquisite element to the track, and, above all, Tyner's piano bass lines, which are exhilarating and turn a song which runs for more than 15 minutes, I think, into something listenable, accessible, groovy and exciting.

Still, it's a theme-solo-theme track with a very strong tonal center: it's not out of the spectrum in terms of complexity, for sure, and not very original in terms of composition techniques, but it works, it's a great song.

It doesn't come to me as a surprise that Olé is one of Coltrane's most commercially successull album nowadays in many countries.

Take the complete "Live! At The Village Vanguard", a staple in Coltrane's catalogue. It's a wonderful album. It's been listened by hundreds of thousands of people and is appreciated and sold all over the world - you're only able to listen to all this music because a record label got to release it and make it available in the market. Nowadays, the complete set is sold with a very informative booklet which gets people to know much more about the man and his music.

To sum it all up: the question is ill-posed. The fact that a piece of music is marketable doesn't mean it's inferior or bad - it means only that there are people willing to listen to it and buy it.

The market is segmented, for sure: some artists sell more, some less, but ultimately there's room for anyone, as weird as one's music may sound.

The possible music is the music we get to listen to or imagine based on what we have listened to - and its boundaries are pretty much those of the market. I honestly can't CONCEIVE a music which has never been marketed in a way or another: technically speaking, nothing out of the league has really happened in music, technically speaking, after such composers as Schoenberg, Messiaen, Boulet or Stravinsky. Schoenberg, and the Second Vienna School in general, as well as Boulez, Messiaen and other great composers widened the realm of possibility in music in such a way that I can't think of something more challenging.

Ironically, there have been releases of these guy's works performed by some great artists which have sold more than The Cosmos Rock. Yes. One can aim at the mainstream and fail or aim to a very limited audience and be more successfull than he thought he could be.

The market is endless. There's room for many different kinds of artists - in a world with such a huge population with access to music there's really no way of telling what's the limit to or the contraints on music. And the market, divided along its many segments,  it's been, and it's still, the primary way we get to appreciate music - it's a channel we can't avoid.

Maybe that's going to change. But up until then, it will often come across as quite weird the claim that an artist fails to make his way because there's no room for challenging music in the market. There is. Sooner or later the market catches up with even those artists we deem most daring.

Coltrane and Dolphy are famous. They were already respected and marketable musicians in their own time and had already a significant audience. That's been increasing over time. Coltrane became an icon.  If this guy, or Sonny Rollins or Thelonious Monk have been able to make their way into the market without sacrificing their music - on the contrary, they played to a marketable audience, having in mind the contours of the media ( discs or tapes ) they had to record on, and which they got to sell, and the taste of their enthusiastic and often fanatic audience.

From Schoenberg to Charlie Parker, some of the best 20th centuries musicians or interpreters (say, Horowitz as a pianist) made a mint. They manage to earn big, real money, and they didn't want to appeal to the largest number of people, but to certain people who they knew were able to appreciate their sound. It's the way the market works: some products are already targeted for a limited, though substantial, audience.

Neil Young has been marketable as well as Bob Dylan - really, does one expect to listen to better or more challenging music than this outside the market? I don't. Dylan's lyrics and Young's musicianship are gifts I fail to get in my everyday life or in music conventions, seminars or schools - there are a lot of wannabe artists, that's for sure, but people who have what made those real artists with an universal appeal possible I really fail to meet. There's no way of breaking with all conventions in music, for various reasons. The most simple being the very fact that some of them empower, rather than put constraints on, artists. Even if there were, one could still do it and sound like rubbish. Total rubbish.            There has been room to groups or performers ranging from, I don't know, Rachmaninov, Ravel, Muddy Waters, Zappa, Blind Guardian, Judas Priest, Sonic Youth, Björk or Queen to Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears and Ashlee Simpson - if one fails to make it as an artist, that's hardly because he's too challenging; it's very likely that he's unlucky or even the people who do appreciate much more daring kinds of music can't relate to his music. So maybe it's the case he's just bad at whatever he does.  Big hug! Yara.

*goodco* wrote: with everything....................there is a black cloud and a silver lining.......... good name for a hopefully good album