| Marcelo_argentina 01.05.2009 21:54 |
Hi everybody...I would like to bring to dicussion something....related to myself and the fact of being a Queen fan ....well ..let's just get to the point....last febraury it was my 30th birthday...I don't know why (i imagine anyway)...but its's a particular moment of my life..I feel diferent..I feel like I am becoming a man...I mean...not beacause of the age...just I feel something is growing inside of me..And I just don't get very well with things I used to...years ago..I just feel I have grown up in an adult way....on the other hand..I was watching some Queen videos on you tube...and suddenly I realize that this four persons...(Freddie, Brian, Jhon, Roger) had been together for more than 20 years in a very difficult moments of their lives....(family friends lovers sons married, millions, etc).so what's the point?...becoming a man in my own life....means also that I have changed a lot...and a lot of people and persons stayed on the past....so the questions is...What do you guys think that make this four person stay together for so many years?...and please do not tell about money...20 years is a lot of time..and you go trough a lot of different situations and feelings...is like they behave like a family or something...do I explain myself with this questions?...what do you think? -Why and how they kept together? |
| lalaalalaa 01.05.2009 22:00 |
Well it obviously is NOT money. The Beatles stayed for money but broke up because they had no chemistry. They all got along well together, basically. They had chemistry most bands don't have. That's why they stayed together while the Beatles, Deep Purple, and other bands lose members because of poor chemistry. |
| jadedlady 01.05.2009 23:38 |
What the poster above said. Also the talent & fans the band had. |
| Rock It 02.05.2009 03:55 |
Good question. I think it has to do with a lot things for instance; 1. They were four totally different individuals, what keeps working with each other fresh in terms off musical input etc. 2. They treated each other equally and respectful. They all were 25% of this band called Queen. 3. When they got bored or had no inspiration or just had enough of it for a while, they put everything on a back burner and they all went their separate ways doing some solo work, collaborations, family time or going on holidays. They were clever enough to know that everybody needed his own breathing space from time to time. 4. Although they did not socialize a lot with each other outside the band, they were good friends and partners in crime. Try to find nasty things they said about each other, there are a view but generally they closed the ranks on almost everything and the occasionally stress inside the band was kept private (except their personal views on for example "Hot Space" and things like the "It's a Hard Life" video, mostly funny remarks). 5 They were serious musicians and perfectionists but they did not take themselves to seriously (tongue in cheek factor). Although most people didn't get that. I think that's essential for your own sanity being a part of this demanding and mind bubbling business called pop music. 6. Most people working for or with them loved them. You don't always hear that in the music business. |
| john bodega 02.05.2009 06:29 |
I really think that they just had the common sense to keep a good thing going, despite whatever short term problems they would've had like interpersonal conflicts. They were very, very smart to do it too. Persisting through dips in the quality of work, they made some stuff on the last couple of albums that was the equal of their best material. Having said that, I'd be very hesitant to say (as lalalalaaa did) that the Beatles had no chemistry, or bad chemistry. It's a fallacy, because on the days that it was working it was *exactly* the chemistry that made them so dang brilliant and sellable. Even in their disintegrated state, they could set things aside and knock something out like the rooftop gig. If THAT isn't chemistry at work, I dunno what is!They didn't lack chemistry; they just outgrew the thing that they'd created together. It's really more a case of four people growing up and consequently, growing apart. Deep Purple, on the other hand, are a great example of personal chemistry (or a lack thereof) ... which is a big shame of course considering the best music they made (period) was with the two guys that could not stand each other (Gillan and Blackmore). But yeah, I've often wondered about Queen's longevity, considering the arguments they were supposed to have been having behind the scenes. Again, it all really comes down to common sense, which they had in oodles... you do not kill the goose that laid the golden egg! They were onto a good thing, they kept it rolling. |
| Sebastian 02.05.2009 16:23 |
First few years: Personal friendship + the desire to make it BoRhap-Crazy era: Not wanting to kill the golden goose Early 80's: Disapointing (from a commercial perspective) solo/off-Queen affairs Late 80's: Mercury's pending death brought them close again |
| Oberon 02.05.2009 17:10 |
Sebastian wrote: First few years: Personal friendship + the desire to make it BoRhap-Crazy era: Not wanting to kill the golden goose Early 80's: Disapointing (from a commercial perspective) solo/off-Queen affairs Late 80's: Mercury's pending death brought them close again Might be some truth to that, but I still think that if Freddie hadn't been ill, they would still have stayed together and kept recording, and I think touring. Might have still done solo stuff etc, but I think they would have stayed as a unit called Queen. if he hadn't died, I think they'd still be going now and going great guns. I think they would have been the first act to play the new Wembley etc. |
| Winter Land Man 02.05.2009 17:41 |
I think if Freddie'd been alive still, Queen would of performed a single with Eminem! |
| Amazon 03.05.2009 17:37 |
Sweet Insanity wrote: I think if Freddie'd been alive still, Queen would of performed a single with Eminem! Oh, god help us! I hate to say it, but if that were to have happened, then that's the one good thing about Freddie being dead and John leaving the group; they wouldn't have teamed up with a rapper! |
| Winter Land Man 03.05.2009 17:59 |
Amazon wrote:Sweet Insanity wrote: I think if Freddie'd been alive still, Queen would of performed a single with Eminem!Oh, god help us! I hate to say it, but if that were to have happened, then that's the one good thing about Freddie beingd dead and John leaving the group; they wouldn't have teamed up with a rapper! Freddie was big on the dance scene thing... I really think, with all the rap in the 90s and 00s, he would of gotten involved with someone. Especially since Eminem likes Queen. |
| Amazon 03.05.2009 18:15 |
Sweet Insanity wrote:Amazon wrote:Freddie was big on the dance scene thing... I really think, with all the rap in the 90s and 00s, he would of gotten involved with someone. Especially since Eminem likes Queen.Sweet Insanity wrote: I think if Freddie'd been alive still, Queen would of performed a single with Eminem!Oh, god help us! I hate to say it, but if that were to have happened, then that's the one good thing about Freddie beingd dead and John leaving the group; they wouldn't have teamed up with a rapper! You may be right. I guess I can't be too horrified since I liked HS and that's not exactly rock. But call me biased, I just don't like rappers, and if Freddie were still around, I just hope that he wouldn't have gotten involved with one. |
| the prophetess 03.05.2009 18:16 |
On the FMTC DVD, Roger Daltrey explains that there is a very special spirituality that develops within a band. And he is right! Especially with a band like Queen where all four members were equally crucial to the band. A band becomes your family. And in Queen’s case, they lived many bonding experiences from the band’s outset, like the mishaps on their earliest American and Australian tours where they stood by themselves like a gang. When Brian got sick in Australia, they could have replaced him and carried on with the American tour, but they didn’t. They knew they had something extraordinary and they knew they could only make it with those four forces onboard. I also think that, the fact they didn’t give too many interviews at the peak of their career kept the band’s mysticism which was a kind of anchor to reality for the four members. And as Zebonka said, they were very smart not to break up. |
| brENsKi 04.05.2009 10:14 |
lalaalalaa wrote: Well it obviously is NOT money. The Beatles stayed for money but broke up because they had no chemistry. They all got along well together, basically. They had chemistry most bands don't have. That's why they stayed together while the Beatles, Deep Purple, and other bands lose members because of poor chemistry. the beatles chemistry was still there when they split. ironically enough they fell out about two years after the split. before 1970 they had had the usual kind of arguments that queen also had many of. the split for the beatles was down to one thing (person) alan Klein. he was bankrupting a golden goose and mcCartney severed the partnership to prevent them all ending up broke. as for queen...what chemistry have they got? they might still be friends after all these years - but they have completely forgotten whatever knack or gift they had for making good music. it's all fairly mediocre fodder these days doesn't matter what you think of them - U2 are a band with chemistry - and they have managed to sustain their key lineup for 30 yrs now....no small achievement |
| catqueen 04.05.2009 15:28 |
They were such good friends in the beginning (and before they formed) but they didn't form based on that - Smile auditioned Roger thoroughly, and Freddie hung around with Smile quite a bit before they took him in. And they went through a few bass players before finding John. So they deliberately chose to work together based on merit rather then friendship. And even when they fought, as has been said before, they kept it between themselves and held a united front. Also, because they all wrote, and all had a huge amount of input into it there was (maybe?) less cause for jealousy and rivalry. They had to prove themselves to each other, and that maybe helped keep their egos from getting totally out of control resulting in a split? They needed each other, even though some of the solo work is good, it doesn't have the magic of Queen. With the Beatles, John and Paul carried the weight of the song writing, so it wasn't as even a team as Queen were. Also, the Beatles went into business together and spent a lot of non-working time together, which would increase teh possibility for tension. When Queen needed space they stayed away from each other, which may have allowed them to keep it together for work. |
| catqueen 04.05.2009 15:30 |
Sweet Insanity wrote: I think if Freddie'd been alive still, Queen would of performed a single with Eminem! Ouch. Another One Bites the Dust on Greatest Hits 3 is bad enough! Although it would have been interesting! :) |
| lalaalalaa 04.05.2009 15:55 |
brENsKi wrote:lalaalalaa wrote: Well it obviously is NOT money. The Beatles stayed for money but broke up because they had no chemistry. They all got along well together, basically. They had chemistry most bands don't have. That's why they stayed together while the Beatles, Deep Purple, and other bands lose members because of poor chemistry.the beatles chemistry was still there when they split. ironically enough they fell out about two years after the split. before 1970 they had had the usual kind of arguments that queen also had many of. the split for the beatles was down to one thing (person) alan Klein. he was bankrupting a golden goose and mcCartney severed the partnership to prevent them all ending up broke. as for queen...what chemistry have they got? they might still be friends after all these years - but they have completely forgotten whatever knack or gift they had for making good music. it's all fairly mediocre fodder these days doesn't matter what you think of them - U2 are a band with chemistry - and they have managed to sustain their key lineup for 30 yrs now....no small achievement I have to disagree on the part "but they have completely forgotten whatever knack or gift they had for making good music." I rather enjoyed the Q+PR projects, although I wasn't expecting them to stay together, just hoping. I'm not going to argue too much about the Beatles on account of 2 reasons. a) This is a Queen forum b) I don't have that grand of knowledge on subject of the Beatles history and such, so I just wait and see if people correct me and I learn from that. |
| Winter Land Man 04.05.2009 16:53 |
Amazon wrote:Sweet Insanity wrote:You may be right. I guess I can't be too horrified since I liked HS and that's not exactly rock. But call me biased, I just don't like rappers, and if Freddie were still around, I just hope that he wouldn't have gotten involved with one.Amazon wrote:Freddie was big on the dance scene thing... I really think, with all the rap in the 90s and 00s, he would of gotten involved with someone. Especially since Eminem likes Queen.Sweet Insanity wrote: I think if Freddie'd been alive still, Queen would of performed a single with Eminem!Oh, god help us! I hate to say it, but if that were to have happened, then that's the one good thing about Freddie beingd dead and John leaving the group; they wouldn't have teamed up with a rapper! I'm not big on rap, but Freddie always seemed to be up with the latest trends. If there had been an Innuendo album if Freddie wasn't ill, it'd of probably still of been a great album in the style of the first five Queen albums, and I imagine that'd give them a chance to do a couple experiments on the next couple Queen albums, to mellow out a bit, I guess. And I think Freddie could out-do Eminem on the naughty-words vocabulary, to be honest. I don't know if that would of been the type of song they went for though, but if you think about it, I'm sure Freddie would of put himself in the rap genre a bit more, and maybe rap. |
| Crisstti 05.05.2009 22:10 |
brENsKi wrote: the beatles chemistry was still there when they split. ironically enough they fell out about two years after the split. before 1970 they had had the usual kind of arguments that queen also had many of. the split for the beatles was down to one thing (person) alan Klein. he was bankrupting a golden goose and mcCartney severed the partnership to prevent them all ending up broke. as for queen...what chemistry have they got? they might still be friends after all these years - but they have completely forgotten whatever knack or gift they had for making good music. it's all fairly mediocre fodder these days doesn't matter what you think of them - U2 are a band with chemistry - and they have managed to sustain their key lineup for 30 yrs now....no small achievement The Beatles indeed had a lot of chemistry. They had huge problems about Allen Klein, when John, George and Ringo hired him as manager with Paul's opposition. But you are right that the big problem between them happend when Paul sued the other three to officially break up the band (which in practice had broken up in late 1969)... |
| Crisstti 05.05.2009 22:22 |
catqueen wrote: They were such good friends in the beginning (and before they formed) but they didn't form based on that - Smile auditioned Roger thoroughly, and Freddie hung around with Smile quite a bit before they took him in. And they went through a few bass players before finding John. So they deliberately chose to work together based on merit rather then friendship. And even when they fought, as has been said before, they kept it between themselves and held a united front. Also, because they all wrote, and all had a huge amount of input into it there was (maybe?) less cause for jealousy and rivalry. They had to prove themselves to each other, and that maybe helped keep their egos from getting totally out of control resulting in a split? They needed each other, even though some of the solo work is good, it doesn't have the magic of Queen. With the Beatles, John and Paul carried the weight of the song writing, so it wasn't as even a team as Queen were. Also, the Beatles went into business together and spent a lot of non-working time together, which would increase teh possibility for tension. When Queen needed space they stayed away from each other, which may have allowed them to keep it together for work. Well, one could argue that in Queen Freddie and Brian carried the weight of the songwriting. So as far as songwriting goes, they were certainly not equal. Especially in the 70's. Having said that, it seems in the group dinamics they were more democratic than The Beatles, where there was some sort of pecking order... They always, on every single album, would begin recording a song by John, then one by Paul, and then the others... The Beatles were closer friends than Queen were... they had been friends since they were like 15. They'd go on vacation together, they lived close to each other... they saw each other socially a lot. I think that the main reasons why Queen stayed together so long was because they would fight. If someone was upset about something, he'd say so. With The Beatles, it seems that until the late 60's they hardly had arguments... then later it was clear that there were a lot of resentments, things that were not said in the moment. John complaining that Paul would go and record a song without the others. George complaining that Paul and John would not respect him as a songwriter, etc... Queen had more arguments, therefore there were less resentments. Things were not left unsaid. That and the fact that they allowed themselves to have paralell solo careers. Oce could say that it might have hurt the quality of Queen albums, since some good songs were left to solo albums. But it certainly helped the band. The Beatles didn't do that. So George would have many unrecorded songs in the late 60's and would be resentful that he could release them... If The Beatles would have had parallel solo careers they would probably have lasted longer. |
| doxonrox 06.05.2009 21:33 |
In Brian's own words, "The sum is greater than the individual parts"... or something like that. |
| Sebastian 07.05.2009 14:11 |
I beg to differ with the 'parallel solo careers' part: the only one who had a 'career' was Roger, who split time between Queen and solo records in early 80's, and then found himself a parallel band. He's also the only one who toured while Queen still existed (as in Mercury, May, Deacon and Taylor). May did three songs, the occasional stint as producer and some live appearances but not enough for it to be considered a 'solo career'. It's as if we see a politician playing golf seven times per year and say 'he's half time a politician and half time a professional golfer'. Same for Freddie-one-solo-album-and-one-collaboration-album-and-absolutely-no-touring-outside-the-band-Mercury. And if John Deacon's single and few collaborations count as 'parallel solo career' then I suppose everybody who's read an article on meat can be called a biologist, everybody who can drive's a motorist and car mechanic, everybody who can write an e-mail's a computer scientist. |
| catqueen 07.05.2009 16:20 |
John Deacon had a single? What's it called? I looked him up on itunes once, but wasn't sure if it was him or another John Deacon. (after spending a few months thinking Roger was absolutely incredible for drumming for Queen and Duran Duran simultaneously and convincing someone else that he did, i'm a bit more wary of people with the same names!) Someone once told me that the reason Queen stayed together for so long was that they were not romantically involved with each other (a la Boy George/ Culture Club.) :) |
| Crisstti 07.05.2009 23:38 |
catqueen wrote: John Deacon had a single? What's it called? I looked him up on itunes once, but wasn't sure if it was him or another John Deacon. (after spending a few months thinking Roger was absolutely incredible for drumming for Queen and Duran Duran simultaneously and convincing someone else that he did, i'm a bit more wary of people with the same names!) Someone once told me that the reason Queen stayed together for so long was that they were not romantically involved with each other (a la Boy George/ Culture Club.) :) You are forgetting about Freddie and Roger :). |
| Crisstti 07.05.2009 23:39 |
Sebastian wrote: I beg to differ with the 'parallel solo careers' part: the only one who had a 'career' was Roger, who split time between Queen and solo records in early 80's, and then found himself a parallel band. He's also the only one who toured while Queen still existed (as in Mercury, May, Deacon and Taylor). May did three songs, the occasional stint as producer and some live appearances but not enough for it to be considered a 'solo career'. It's as if we see a politician playing golf seven times per year and say 'he's half time a politician and half time a professional golfer'. Same for Freddie-one-solo-album-and-one-collaboration-album-and-absolutely-no-touring-outside-the-band-Mercury. And if John Deacon's single and few collaborations count as 'parallel solo career' then I suppose everybody who's read an article on meat can be called a biologist, everybody who can drive's a motorist and car mechanic, everybody who can write an e-mail's a computer scientist. You're right, John didn't have a solo career... but I'd say the other three did. So Brian didn't have much of a solo career... but it was certainly more than The Beatles members did. |
| lalaalalaa 08.05.2009 07:51 |
catqueen wrote: John Deacon had a single? What's it called? I looked him up on itunes once, but wasn't sure if it was him or another John Deacon. (after spending a few months thinking Roger was absolutely incredible for drumming for Queen and Duran Duran simultaneously and convincing someone else that he did, i'm a bit more wary of people with the same names!) Someone once told me that the reason Queen stayed together for so long was that they were not romantically involved with each other (a la Boy George/ Culture Club.) :) Well I guess you are reffering to the single he released with the band "The Immortals." The single was No Turning Back (check youtube) |
| Sebastian 08.05.2009 12:24 |
Crisstti wrote: Brian didn't have much of a solo career... but it was certainly more than The Beatles members did. IMO, we could put it this way: a bloke who's 5 ft tall isn't a dwarf, but he's not tall. Likewise: having an EP released is more than what Beatles members did during their Beatle years, but it's not a solo 'career' per se. After Freddie died (i.e. after Queen ended) Brian did have a solo career, but not before. |
| Winter Land Man 08.05.2009 20:37 |
Sebastian wrote:Crisstti wrote: Brian didn't have much of a solo career... but it was certainly more than The Beatles members did.IMO, we could put it this way: a bloke who's 5 ft tall isn't a dwarf, but he's not tall. Likewise: having an EP released is more than what Beatles members did during their Beatle years, but it's not a solo 'career' per se. After Freddie died (i.e. after Queen ended) Brian did have a solo career, but not before. I agree with you with that. |