| 12yrslouetta 24.10.2009 22:01 |
I never saw Queen as a rock band, i always saw them as more than that. When i heard Hot Space it was just Queen for me, i never saw it as any form of departure at all. It is interesting reading all the comments on this board for all of these years that Queen are seen as a rock band. Ive always wondered whats the criteria of a rock band?? Queen released singles like Radio GaGa, Another One Bites, Back Chat, Im Going Slightly Mad, now these dont seem like rock band moves to me. When you listen to a Bon Jovi album or say an Aerosmith album its all pretty much rock all the way through. With Queen their albums always had alot of varied stuff on them..........Were Queen actually a rock band?? |
| Sebastian 24.10.2009 22:15 |
They were promoted as a rock band and led a rock lifestyle (most of the time at least). Very broadly and vaguely defined, rock bands are those where: * The songs are (mostly) written and composed by people within the group. * The instruments are (mostly) arranged and performed by people within the group. * The output features relative balance between instruments and vocals in terms of focus. OTOH, pop groups (e.g. Spice Girls) are those where: * Songs are (partly, mostly or completely) written and composed by people outside the group. * Instruments are (partly, mostly or completely) arranged and performed by people outside the group. * Output features mostly vocal sections favouring the singer(s) rather than the instrumentalist(s). So, for instance, Radio Ga Ga may be 'light', feature loads of machines and programming, but is still a 'rock band doing a Europop-influenced track for a change' rather than 'a rock band turning into a pop group'. Same for, say, Backstreet Boys' Larger than Life: it's got distorted electric guitars (including a very nice solo), it's co-written by one of them, it's got instrumental sections... but it doesn't make BSB a rock band. |
| rhyeking 25.10.2009 02:16 |
I always defined "Rock" and "Rock Stars" by their approach to their craft, not nessecarily by the end result. "Rock" music, as a genre is very broad and encompasses a few different internal styles. It doesn't help matters when the music press, the recording industry and music outlets (stores, ITunes, etc) are constantly redefining individual artists and bands retroactively (for instance, some bands who were "Alternative" in the '90s are now lumped into "Rock" ten or fifteen years later). So, I tend to stick to with the artists' intent: What were they trying to accomplish? For me, what "Rock" artists are trying to do is create music primarily driven by gut-instinct, where it reflects more raw emotion. This isn't to say the lyrics have to reflect that (though most do), but the finished product hits you in the gut or grabs your heart-strings or smacks you up-side your head...or just knocks you flat on your ass. "Rock" music takes what it needs from whatever influence it encounters and builds on it. "Pop Music" is short for "Popular Music," which did not start out as a synonym for the bouncy, fluffy, superficial, but seems to have grown into a derogatory term for just that, much the way modern R&B has no real musical connection to it's ancestor: good-ole Rhythm & Blues. The musical family tree is knotted, gnarled and still growing, but a few examples of influence follow these lines: Folk begat Country, Skiffle and Blues; Blues and Jazz begat Rhythm & Blues, which begat Rock & Roll, which begat Beat Music, Rock, Modern Rock, Folk Rock, Psychedelic Rock and Blues Rock; Rock begat Glam Rock, Progressive Rock, Hard Rock and Punk; Glam Rock and Prog Rock begat Heavy Metal; Punk and Rock begat Grunge; Grunge begat Alternative.... Rhythm & Blues also begat Soul and Funk, which begat Disco, which begat Euro-pop and Synth-pop, which begat Techno, which begat Club and Modern Dance... Funk + Rhythm & Blues begat Rap; Rap, Soul and Funk begat Hip Hop; Hip Hop and Soul begat Modern R&B... These threads I drew are in no way complete, but it shows just how insanely difficult tracking the influence of music is in the last 50 years. Going back to my original point (sorry to drift a bit), because of its ancestry, "Rock" can thrive in diversity, adopting different forms to suit the intention of the artists. Queen were very much a rock band because they exploited so many influences while staying true to their emotional core. AC/DC, in contrast, sticks close to the heavy, harder, bluesier corner of the spectrum and are quite content to stay there. The Who evolved from Rhythm & Blues and Mod Rock into more straightforward "Rock" by the '80s (compare "My Generation" to "You Better, You Bet"). Anyway, that's my opinion... (I gotta stop these long threads) |
| pittrek 25.10.2009 11:58 |
Of course they were a rock band, who doubts it ? They were a art rock / glam rock / hard rock / heavy metal / trash metal / pop rock / punk rock / synth pop / rock'n'roll / rockabily / disco / funk ..... band |
| QUEENexpert 25.10.2009 12:11 |
They were one of those rare rock bands that could get away with anything. They could do pretty much anything they pleased and everyone would love it. Now, they do have some very hard core rock songs like White Man and Stone Cold Crazy and Modern Times Rock-n-Roll(at least I see those as hard core). They're just amazing. |
| qrock 25.10.2009 12:52 |
They were a Rock Band but they were one of those rock bands who were unique, had a style and sound of their own. |
| PauloPanucci 25.10.2009 14:42 |
pittrek wrote: Of course they were a rock band, who doubts it ? They were a art rock / glam rock / hard rock / heavy metal / trash metal / pop rock / punk rock / synth pop / rock'n'roll / rockabily / disco / funk ..... band all this... because this things they are/were good!!! |
| Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira 25.10.2009 17:25 |
pittrek wrote: Of course they were a rock band, who doubts it ? They were a art rock / glam rock / hard rock / heavy metal / trash metal / pop rock / punk rock / synth pop / rock'n'roll / rockabily / disco / funk ..... band LOL that's about it. |
| Jazz 78 26.10.2009 09:58 |
Were Queen a rock band? YES... and a very good one at that! |
| Bo Alex 26.10.2009 16:30 |
Were Queen A Rock Band? Yes, they were. Not just that: they were the best of all the rock bands. |
| Cwazy little thing 27.10.2009 09:26 |
In the various attempts to define rock music, I dont think anyone has mentioned the importance of the guitar. Personally I dont think you can have rock music without a guitar - thats the instrument that "rocks" as it were. Attempts the nail down music into genres can are always loose affairs, as someone said above, due to the way that styles and approaches to music have intertwined and grown over the years. However, for me Queen were a rock band merely because they could, and did do the heavy overdriven guitar music, but also so much more because they were very capable and willing to play in other styles and push the boundaries a bit. |
| FriedChicken 27.10.2009 09:54 |
Cwazy little thing wrote: In the various attempts to define rock music, I dont think anyone has mentioned the importance of the guitar. Personally I dont think you can have rock music without a guitar - thats the instrument that "rocks" as it were. Attempts the nail down music into genres can are always loose affairs, as someone said above, due to the way that styles and approaches to music have intertwined and grown over the years. However, for me Queen were a rock band merely because they could, and did do the heavy overdriven guitar music, but also so much more because they were very capable and willing to play in other styles and push the boundaries a bit. Listen to Don't Stop Me Now, that song rocks and it barely has guitar. |
| djcamper 27.10.2009 14:46 |
Sebastian wrote: They were promoted as a rock band and led a rock lifestyle (most of the time at least). Very broadly and vaguely defined, rock bands are those where: * The songs are (mostly) written and composed by people within the group. * The instruments are (mostly) arranged and performed by people within the group. * The output features relative balance between instruments and vocals in terms of focus. OTOH, pop groups (e.g. Spice Girls) are those where: * Songs are (partly, mostly or completely) written and composed by people outside the group. * Instruments are (partly, mostly or completely) arranged and performed by people outside the group. * Output features mostly vocal sections favouring the singer(s) rather than the instrumentalist(s). So, for instance, Radio Ga Ga may be 'light', feature loads of machines and programming, but is still a 'rock band doing a Europop-influenced track for a change' rather than 'a rock band turning into a pop group'. Same for, say, Backstreet Boys' Larger than Life: it's got distorted electric guitars (including a very nice solo), it's co-written by one of them, it's got instrumental sections... but it doesn't make BSB a rock band. It doesn't matter who wrote or who played on songs, it matters to which genre these songs belong to. There were a lot of light songs on Queen albums in the 80's -> they were pop-rock band. Live, rock aspect was much more prevelent. |
| Cwazy little thing 27.10.2009 18:53 |
FriedChicken wrote:Cwazy little thing wrote: In the various attempts to define rock music, I dont think anyone has mentioned the importance of the guitar. Personally I dont think you can have rock music without a guitar - thats the instrument that "rocks" as it were. Attempts the nail down music into genres can are always loose affairs, as someone said above, due to the way that styles and approaches to music have intertwined and grown over the years. However, for me Queen were a rock band merely because they could, and did do the heavy overdriven guitar music, but also so much more because they were very capable and willing to play in other styles and push the boundaries a bit.Listen to Don't Stop Me Now, that song rocks and it barely has guitar. Oh, Im not saying you absolutely CANT have a single song or part of a song that rocks without a guitar (although its very rare) - hence the bit about genre lines being blurred (although DSMN does have a red hot guitar solo!). However I'd be comfortable asserting that I've never seen a "rock band" or a "band that rocks" (lol) without a guitarist. If you took the guitar solo out of DSMN, and all Queen's songs had sounded something like THAT, I wouldnt call them a rock band. |
| freddie-alquinta 27.10.2009 18:56 |
QueenPaulo wrote:what the hell did you just say??? ..... oh yeah... you just can say what you heard in movies!! ... you "bastard" ..... xDpittrek wrote: Of course they were a rock band, who doubts it ? They were a art rock / glam rock / hard rock / heavy metal / trash metal / pop rock / punk rock / synth pop / rock'n'roll / rockabily / disco / funk ..... bandall this... because this things they are/were good!!! |
| mike hunt 28.10.2009 02:33 |
Queen played more styles on one album than most rock bands play in a career. The works is considered one of Queens weakest albums, but even that album had many styles. Radio ga ga (pop) tear it up, hammer to fall (hard rock) it's a hard life (operatic rock) man on the prowl (rock n roll) . Overall, Queen are a rock n roll band who has many hard rock songs. |
| PauloPanucci 28.10.2009 12:14 |
freddie-alquinta wrote:QueenPaulo wrote:what the hell did you just say??? ..... oh yeah... you just can say what you heard in movies!! ... you "bastard" ..... xDpittrek wrote: Of course they were a rock band, who doubts it ? They were a art rock / glam rock / hard rock / heavy metal / trash metal / pop rock / punk rock / synth pop / rock'n'roll / rockabily / disco / funk ..... bandall this... because this things they are/were good!!! cala boca chileno filho da puta! agora voce me entende??????? vagabundo!!!! vai se fude! vai come tua mãe retardado! se você não entender oque eu disse, procura no google, filho da puta! |
| GratefulFan 28.10.2009 15:15 |
QueenPaulo wrote: cala boca chileno filho da puta! agora voce me entende??????? vagabundo!!!! vai se fude! vai come tua mãe retardado! se você não entender oque eu disse, procura no google, filho da puta! No no no. I Want To Break Free has nothing to do with being gay. I mean, John Deacon is married with about four children! And don't ask me again! |
| PauloPanucci 28.10.2009 15:29 |
GratefulFan wrote: No no no. I Want To Break Free has nothing to do with being gay. I mean, John Deacon is married with about four children. And don't ask me again! lol, i see you understood all, i just post it because have idiot newbies here who think they're the best! So, they don't have nothing to do and stay typing shit in forums! (freddie-alquinta, if i have grammar errors, can you correct for me and send by e-mail???i'll appreciate so much this action!)[img=/images/smiley/msn/envelope.gif][/img] |
| freddie-alquinta 28.10.2009 18:22 |
uuy se picó solo porque opino algo que no le gusta a él..... brasilero y la conchatumadre .... "you think you are the best, you think you are the best" .... lo repite como mono.... imbécil xD PD: IGUAL NADIE TE ENTIENDE HIJO DE PUTA |
| Dane 30.10.2009 09:21 |
Queen were a Rock Band.. yes they were. Especially in the early days when the rock songs were the basis of all their albums. Strange to think they made as little music as they did. I bet they could have filled a couple of 'White Albums' in the early days if they were given the time. |
| 12yrslouetta 01.11.2009 16:29 |
I always thought they were more of a pop band than a "rock " band. But what do i know, some people call the beatles a rock band so..................... |
| Micrówave 01.11.2009 22:21 |
I always thought of them more as a folk trio. |
| Dane 02.11.2009 04:27 |
Micrówave wrote: I always thought of them more as a folk trio. If you mean the four of them as a Folk trio, I agree. LOL |